Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2903
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Rajesh Kumar Arya, Member
Narayan Ram – Appellant
Versus
M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/58/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Sateekshan Sood
For the Respondents: Sh. Arjun Sharma
Failure to deliver possession constitutes deficiency in service under consumer protection laws, entitling complainants to compensation.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Delivery of possession - The complainants sought relief against builders for not delivering possession of a residential unit purchased under a subvention scheme - The court held that possession was to be delivered within 42 months but was delayed, and the complainants were entitled to compensation for mental harassment and delayed possession. (Paras 10, 11, 16, 23)
(B) Consumer definition - The opposite parties failed to prove that complainants were not consumers under the CPA 2019, thus their complaint was maintainable and jurisdiction was established. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Complainants paid substantial amounts for a residential unit in a project but were denied timely possession, leading to claims for compensation and damages.
Findings of Court:
The court found the developers deficient in service for not delivering the property within the promised time frame, ordering them to provide possession and pay compensation.
Issues: The central issues were the definition of a consumer and the applicability of jurisdiction to the complaint about delayed possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that failure to deliver possession constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing consumer rights against unfair trade practices.
Result: Complaint partly accepted, with multiple directives for compensation and possession.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed for delayed delivery. (Para 2) |
| 2. definition of consumer upheld. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. possession expectations clarified. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 4. final orders and compensation awarded. (Para 23 , 24) |
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI
This complaint has been filed by the complainants, seeking following relief from opposite parties no.1 and 2 qua unit bearing no. TLC/VICTORIA-C/EIGHTEENH/1803, measuring 1530 square feet, purchased by them in the year 2015, under subvention scheme, in the project named “The Lake” Omaxe New Chandigarh, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab:-
a) The Opposite Parties be directed to give Possession along with interest on Delayed Payment of Rs. 54,73,324/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of receipt of amount by the O.P's till the date of decision of the complaint filed with further necessary directions of Penal/Excess interest till the date of realization of payment to prevent any further delay.
b) That the Opposite Party be directed to Cancel the Last and Final Opportunity for payment of the remaining installment on possession and maintain status quo of the said unit.
c) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- towards the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant as well as for not allotting the plot in time as promised by them and further loss caused to the complainant in terms of visiting the office of the O.P's several times.
d) The Opposite Parties be directed to Refund to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for covered car Parking as Unfair Trade Practice.
e) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay interest on Club Membership fee of Rs.1,50,000/- for committing unfair trade practice, deficiency in service.
f) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-for committing unfair trade practice, deficiency in service.
g) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay the litigation charges to the tune of Rs 60,000/- towards the unwarranted and uncalled for litigation.
h) Any other relief, which this Commission may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the complainant and against the O.P's.
2. It is the case of the complainants that though they have paid substantial amount of Rs.54,73,324/- against total sale consideration of Rs.73,60,009/- to opposite parties no.1 and 2, qua the unit in question, starting from 2015 onwards, yet, possession thereof has not been delivered so far, which otherwise, as per clause 40 (a) of the Allotment letter/Agreement dated 21.09.2015, Annexure C-1, was to be delivered within a period of 36 months plus 6 months grace period i.e. within a total period of 42 months from the date of signing of the said Allotment letter/Agreement i.e. on or before 20.03.2019. For making payment of the sale consideration, the complainants availed housing loan from opposite party no.3 and as such, tripartite agreement dated 21.09.2015, Annexure C-3, was executed between the parties, under which the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were liable to pay Pre-EMI to opposite party no.3. Even the club house, for which an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs have been received from the complainants, has not even started at the project site and also covered parking has also not been provided, for which they have received Rs.2 lacs. In order to evade their liabilities of making payment of Pre-EMIs, opposite parties no.1 and 2 have offered fit- out possession of the unit vide letter dated 11.03.2024, Annexure C-5/2 which is vague. It was also found that the area of the unit in question has been arbitrarily increased and now the company is pressing the complainants to fulfill its illegal demands. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking the reliefs (ibid)
3. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to sale of the unit in question to the complainants; execution of allotment letter/agreement etc. took various objections/pleas as under:-
i. that
