Valid contract cancellation for buyer payment default; no deficiency in service when builder completes per tripartite agreement.

Order:

(Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon’ble President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad in CC.No.25/2021 dated 26.07.2022 for dismissing the complaint filed by him.

2. (a) The case of the Complainant was that, the Complainant filed the case pertaining to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.1 in not completing the construction of the apartment No.106, 1st Floor, Type-2 and 1/2 BHK, E-Block together with built up area admeasuring 1030.06 square feet, common area 171 square feet and undivided share of land admeasuring 45.93 square yards out of 23,804.24 square yards forming part of survey No.4/A, 4/AA situated at Peeramcheruvu Village and G.P.Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, earmarked for the construction of the apartment complex, pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 13.02.2014. The total cost of the apartment was Rs.29,85,562/-. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- at the time of booking the flat on 15.04.2014, Rs.1,50,000/- on 29.04.2014 and Rs.4,12,674/- on 07.05.2014, total Rs.6,12,674/- as advance. The said flat had to be delivered by Opposite Parties by 31.05.2014 (with a grace period of 90 days). The CEO of Opposite Party No.1 made the Complainant to believe that they would deliver the apartment by 31.05.2014. On the basis of the said representation made, the Complainant sought for a housing loan of Rs.22,73,000/- from SBI and the said Bank directly disbursed an amount of Rs.18,49,574/- to the Opposite Party No.1 builder and for the amount of Rs.4,12,674/- a cheque was prepared to be disbursed, but stopped because the construction had been halted, but the Bankers had debited from the Complainant’s account apart from the advance amount. The Opposite Party No.1 after receiving the housing loan amount, abandoned the project after receiving an amount of Rs.24,62,248/-. The Opposite Party No.1 claimed that it obtained permission for construction of multi-storied apartment from Hyderabad Urban Development Authority with facilities like club, parks, open spaces, Gym, health club, play grounds, shopping centres etc. The Opposite Party No.1 gave wide publicity in the print and electronic media for its housing project known as “Vasanthi Anandi” promising a rosy picture. The Opposite Party No.1 released several brochures and advertisements emphasizing the merits of the said project. The Complainant was carried away by the wide publicity given by the Opposite Party No.1 and was induced in purchasing the apartment and entered into agreement of sale with the Opposite Party No.1 on 13.02.2014. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainants that the construction of the apartment would be completed by 31.05.2014 (with a grace period of 90 days). Thus the apartment ought to have been completed by 31.05.2014, but the builder requested the Complainant that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the project would be delayed for six months and promised to deliver by October, 2014. Accordingly, the payments were made by the Complainant as and when the builder asked.

(b) The Complainant further submitted that he was paying the interest regularly to the Bank even though the apartment was not handed over. He paid Rs.20,51,000/- to the Bank as EMI and paid Rs.11,20,702/- only as interest. Not only that he availed a personal loan of Rs.6,12,672/- from the Bank for making down payment to Opposite Party No.1 and for that also paid interest of Rs.1,81,429/-. He fulfilled