SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1052

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. VISWANATH, PRESIDING MEMBER, RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, MEMBER
GITA RANI NARANG (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS. MR. SURENDER KR. NARANG & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATES DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1868 OF 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Mr. Rishabh Bharadwaj
For the Respondents: Mr. Avinash Ankit, Mr. Sidharth Sarthi

Determination of consumer status in residential property purchase and remedies for delayed possession; compensation awarded for deficiency in service.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(1) - Complaint for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice - Complainants booked three flats but faced delays in possession and arbitrary price increases - Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession as per agreed timelines - Complainants entitled to compensation for delay. (Paras 20-21)

(B) Consumer definition - Issue of whether buyers are consumers under Consumer Protection Act - Determination based on intent for use, not merely on the number of purchases - Decisions indicate a person purchasing multiple residences for individual family use is not deemed to be for commercial purposes. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
Complainant's dispute stems from the booking of three flats in a housing project with promised delivery timelines. Receipt of fraudulent price increases and lack of possession led to the filing of the complaint.

Findings of Court:
The complaint is partly allowed; Opposite Party No.1 must deliver possession of Flats 1 & 2 and compensate the Complainant for delays.

Issues: Whether delay in possession constitutes a deficiency in service; determination of consumer status based on intent of purchase.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that delivery of possession was not adhered to as per agreement, exposing the Opposite Parties to liability for compensation.

Result: Complaint partly allowed; directions for possession and compensation issued.

Table of Content
1. complaint details and service failures regarding property delivery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments against consumer classification and service issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. presentation of judicial precedents affecting case. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. conclusion on compensation for delay and delivery of flats. (Para 20)
5. orders issued for the delivery of possession and compensation. (Para 21)
ORDER

1. The present Complaint is filed under Section 21 (a) (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Originally, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant-Mr. Surender K. Narang and his wife Ms. Gita Rani Narang. During the pendency of the Complaint, Complainant- Ms. Gita Rani Narang expired and her legal heirs Master Abhimanyu Narang and Master Abhay Narang were substituted.

2. Case of the Complainants is that Complainant- Mr. Surender K. Narang and his wife Ms. Gita Rani Narang booked 3 flats, viz. Flats Nos. OAK 1402, OAK 1502 and PALASH - 701 (hereinafter referred as Flat Nos.1, 2 & 3) on different dates in the Group Housing Project ‘Srishti -Shipra Krishna’, 15, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.). The Project was a joint venture of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.

3. Opposite Party No.1/Builder represented that all approvals from the concerned authorities were already taken. The Complainants booked Flat No.1 (OAK 1402) measuring super area 2500 sq. ft. on 04.06.2013 by paying an advance of Rs.5 Lakhs, vide cheque No.827476 drawn on ICICI Bank and the flat was allotted, vide allotment letter No.1128 dated 04.06.2013. The possession of the flat was to be delivered by February, 2014.

4. The Complainants also booked Flat No.2 measuring 2350 sq. ft. by paying Rs.10 Lakhs. As per allotment letter dated 30.11.2014, possession of the flat was to be delivered by April, 2015.

5. Similarly, the Complainants booked Flat No.3 measuring 2350 sq. ft. by paying an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-. As per allotment letter dated 30.05.2013, possession was to be given by January, 2014.

6. The Complainants also made payment to Opposite Party No.1 as per schedule given in the allotment letters. The Complainants came to know that Opposite Party applied for approval of building plan of the flats one year after booking of the flats after accepting substantial amount from the Complainants. The Complainants made timely payment to Opposite Party No.1. They had taken loan from the bank and were paying interest on the amount. The Bank delayed disbursement of the loan amount because Opposite Party No.1 failed to provide the approved map of the project. On 22.12.2015, Opposite Party No.1 sent an email to the Complainants alongwith statement of account. As per the statement, super area of flat No.1 was increased from 2500 sq. ft. to 2680 sq. ft. and that of flat No.2 from 2350 sq. ft. to 2680 sq. ft., thereby arbitrarily increasing the cost of the flats by Rs.21 lakhs. Similarly, the area of flat No.3 was increased from 2450 sq. ft. to 2463 sq. ft. Opposite Party No.1 also failed to deliver possession in time. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed the instant Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:

“A. award compensation of against claim Rs.3,540,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Forty Thousand only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (1) above alongwith interest, if any;

B. award compensation of against claim Rs.1,57,51,624/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven lacs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Four only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (2) above alongwith interest, if any;

C. award compensation of against claim of Rs.5,80,000/-(Rupees Five Lac Eighty Thousand only) as mentioned in paragraph IV (3) above alongwith interest, if any;

D. direct reverse of entry of Rs.21, 50,248/- (Rupees twenty one lakh fifty thousand two hundred fifty eight) as mentioned in paragraph IV (4) above, if any;

E. award compensation of against claims Rs.43,4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top