Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 10063
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PADMA PANDEY, PJ, PREETINDER SINGH, M
BABITA SETH – Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/57/2024
For the Complainant: Sh. Bawa Karanveer, Sh. Bhanu Sharma
For the Opposite Party: Sh. Vishal Singal
Consumer protection rights persist irrespective of project registration under RERA, and delays must be addressed by service providers.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency of service and unfair trade practices - Complainant alleges non-delivery of possession of the purchased flat - Opposite Party claims burden of proof lies on complainant, yet fails to establish their position as a non-consumer. (Paras 8-9)
(B) The onset of Covid-19 does not exempt the Opposite Party from accountability for service delays predating the pandemic. (Para 9)
(C) Jurisdiction of Consumer Commission upheld despite project being registered under RERA Act - Rights to seek remedy under Consumer Protection maintained. (Para 10)
(D) Refund along with interest and compensation awarded for mental agony due to delays. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Complainant paid a substantial amount for a flat, possession of which was delayed past the agreed date leading to grievances of unfair trade practices against the developer.
Findings of Court:
Delay in possession acknowledged - Opposite Party maintained deficient service leading to the complaint's acceptance.
Issues: Essential issues included the definition of consumer and jurisdictional questions related to the RERA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that consumer rights are maintained irrespective of the RERA registration, and producer's defenses regarding the pandemic do not absolve them from liability.
Result: Complaint partly allowed with directives on refund and compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant made substantial payments without receiving unit possession. (Para 3) |
| 2. court addressed the definition of consumer and service delivery. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. court reaffirmed the applicability of consumer rights amidst rera. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court ordered refunds along with compensation for unfair trade practices. (Para 14 , 15) |
…… Opposite Party BEFORE: PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT : Sh. Bawa Karanveer, Advocate along with Sh. Bhanu Sharma, Advocate for the Complainant.
: Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for the Opposite Party.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER In brief, it is the case of the complainant that despite making payment of (cid:0)56,22,231/- to the Opposite Party out of total sale consideration of (cid:0)72,84,100/-, towards purchase of Flat bearing th no.O-504, measuring 1705 sq. ft., 5 Floor, Tower O, in its project named ‘Sushma Crescent’, at Village Gazipur & Kishanpura, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short the unit), possession whereof as per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for Sale dated 12.12.2018 was supposed to be handed over on 12.06.2022, which was not offered till date. The said unit was purchased under "Subvention Plan" and a Tripartite Agreement was executed on 17.12.2018 between the Complainant, Opposite Party and the HDFC Ltd. Various requests and personal entreaties were made by the complainant with the Opposite Party for possession of the unit did not yield any fruitful results. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of
2.
the case.
3. Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant on numerous grounds, inter alia, that the complainant being speculator does not fall within the definition of consumer; that Complaint is liable for want of both pecuniary & territorial jurisdiction; that Covid-19 pandemic and consequent government imposed restrictions directly impacted project timelines which was beyond the control of the Opposite Party; that the project in question has been registered under RERA and as such this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission when both the parties have agreed for adjudication through Adjudicating Officer to be appointed under RERA Act; that the Complainant executed a Tripartite Agreement with HDFC Ltd. on 17.12.2018 for a housing loan of (cid:0)45,00,000/- towards the payment of the sale consideration of the unit and in accordance with Clause 3.1 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party had duly fulfilled its obligation by making payments of pre-EMI totalling (cid:0)12,86,907/-. On merits, purchase of the unit in question by the complainant; payments made by her as mentioned in the complaint; has not been disputed by the Opposite Party. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer has been made by Opposite Party for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4. Controverting the allegations contained in the reply filed by Opposite Party and reiterating the pleadings in the complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5. Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments advanced.
7. After scanning of record, including written arguments, our findings are as under:-
8. Firstly, we will deal with the objection taken by the Opposite Party to the effect that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such the onus shifts to the Opposite Party to establish that the complainant has purchased the unit in question to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of unit’ as was held by the Hon’ble National Commissio
