Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1319
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, PRESIDING MEMBER, DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER
SHEKHAR SETHU & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED & ORS. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 200 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shushil Kaushik, Ms. Himanshi Singh, Mr. Karan S. Negi
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Mund, Mr. Pragalbh Bhardwaj
Consumers retain rights under buyer agreements despite purchasing from third parties, relevant to compensation for delays.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Definition of consumer - Relevant case law discussed regarding commercial purpose and transfer of rights. The opposite party failed to prove that the complainants were investors rather than consumers based on the buyer's agreement. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Compensation for delay - Legal principles established regarding compensation for delays in possession as included in buyer's agreements. The court, relying on established case law, awarded compensation at 6% per annum for delay. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The complainants alleged deficiency in service due to delays by the developer in handing over possession of the property, initially set for December 2010, which extended to February 2018 without resolution.
Findings of Court:
Compensation for delayed possession awarded until a fresh statement of account is established reflecting any payable amounts, including interest calculations on deposits.
Issues: The court addressed whether the complainants were consumers and entitled to protection under the Act, given that they purchased a property initially booked by a third party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the complainants, having bought the unit from the original allottees, still retain rights under the buyer's agreement due to lack of evidence from the developers to the contrary.
Result: Complaint partly allowed; compensation for delay to be rendered and possession to be delivered appropriately.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition of consumers and applicability of consumer protection laws. (Para 1 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. delayed possession due to construction issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. entitlement to interest as compensation for delay in possession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
1. Heard Mr. Shushil Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate, for opposite parties-1 & 2 and Mr. Pragalbh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for opposite party-3.
2. Shekhar Shethu and Smrita Jain have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover possession of apartment No. TDP-F-F06-602, complete in all respect as per specification and execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainants; (ii) pay compensation for delayed possession in the form of interest @12% per annum on the deposit of the complainants from due date of possession till handing over possession, (iii) exempt the complainants from paying the escalation in cost including enhanced service tax, (iv) pay Rs.5/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost; and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The complainants stated that the opposite parties were companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. Opposite parties-2 and 3 were owners of approximately 31.62 acres land at village Badshahpur, Sector-66, Gurgaon. Opposite parties-2 and 3 through a development agreement dated 18.03.2006 authorised M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited (opposite party-1), (for short the developer) for development and construction of group housing projects and selling its unit to the prospective buyers over the aforesaid land. They obtained licence from Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, for development of township on 27.09.2007. The developer launched a group housing project in the name of “The Palm Drive” at village Badshahpur, Sector-66, Gurgaon and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities in the year 2007. Believing upon the representations and lucrative advertisement of the developer, Aneet Singh Virk and Ms. Anjali Ranger Virk, the predecessor-in-interest of the complainants applied for provisional registration on 27.12.2007 and deposited required amount time to time. The opposite parties allotted Unit No. TPD-F-F06-602, super area 2125 sq.ft. and two car parking space, in the project “The Palm Drive”, for total sale price Rs.10949175/- (at the rate of Rs.4600/- per sq.ft.) and executed Buyer’s Agreement dated 12.02.2008 in their favour. The complainants purchased aforesaid Unit from Aneet Singh Virk and Ms. Anjali Ranger Virk, with prior permission of the opposite parties though Agreement For Sale dated 10.05.2012, for total sale consideration of Rs.11573459.63, including service tax, out of which Rs.10861100/- had already been paid to the developer. The developer endorsed the names of the complainants in Buyer’s Agreement. Clause-14 of the Buyer’s Agreement provides that possession would be offered till December, 2010, with grace period of 90 days. At the time of purchasing the apartment, the time line as provided in the agreement had expired. The complainants inquired from the office of the developer for possession, then they informed that possession would be delivered till January, 2013. After, January, 2013, the complainants visited the site several times but found that the construction was not in progress and seemed to be abandoned. The complainants booked apartment from the opposite party in their project “Premier Terraces”, in which, also the opposite parties failed to deliver possession on due date. The opposite parties, after collecting money from the home buyers, were utilising it for their own purpose and did not care for timely completion of the project. The complainants were in acute need of the residence and due to
