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) 937

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
SHAMIK BAGCHI & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. M.M. DEVELOPERS-SHRAMJIVI & 5 ORS. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 2062 OF 2016 | CONSUMER CASE NO. 125 OF 2017 | CONSUMER CASE NO. 2171 OF 2016 | CONSUMER CASE NO. 458 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Hitesh Rajpurohit, Advocate
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate

Unreasonable delay in possession of residential flats constitutes deficiency in service under consumer law, mandating compensation as per contract terms.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Slums Improvement (Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971 - Section not specified - Slum Rehabilitation Authority approved rehabilitation scheme - Opposite parties delayed possession of flats causing distress and inconvenience to complainants - Both sides present evidence regarding construction delay and obligations under agreements. (Paras 2, 3, 13, 14)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Principles of deficiency in service and compensation - Unreasonable delay in possession is a deficiency in service as per consumer law - Opposite parties to pay compensation @12% for delay per agreement conditions. (Paras 12, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The complainants are individuals who booked residential flats in a real estate project named “MM Spectra” by the opposite parties. They paid substantial amounts ahead of the possession date, which was repeatedly deferred.

Findings of Court:
The opposite parties were found to have delayed possession without justified cause, breaching consumer agreements and obligations.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the delay in possession of flats, and obligations of the developers under the agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that unreasonable delay constitutes deficiency in service, and granted compensation based on contractual obligations.

Result: The opposite parties are directed to handover possession and pay compensation for delay.

Table of Content
1. details of complainants' bookings and payments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9)
2. opposite parties' delay constitutes deficiency in service. (Para 11 , 14)
3. court's assessment of obligations and delay compensation. (Para 12 , 15)
ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Hitesh Rajpurohit, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

2. The land at C.S.T. No.61(part), 61/130 to 135, 61/138 to 146, village Chembur, Municipal Corporation Ward “M West”, Eastern Express Highway, Chembur (East), Mumbai was occupied by slum dwellers from last many decades. The dwellers formed Shramjivi Co-operative Housing Society and get it registered. They applied for its redevelopment under Maharashtra Slums Improvement (Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971. Slum Rehabilitation Authority vide letter of intent dated 01.02.2010 as amended on 07.12.2011 approved the scheme of rehabilitation. Shramjivi Co-operative Housing Society entered into a Development Agreement with M/s. M.M. Developers, (now M/s. M.M. Developers- Shramjivi) who submitted Development Plan, for rehabilitation of members of the society which was approved and Commencement Certificate was granted on 21.04.2011. On the remaining land, which was saleable area, the opposite parties applied for sanction of Layout Plan of the building “MM Spectra”, which was sanctioned and “Commencement Certificate” was granted on 18.06.2012 and Layout Plan of the building “MM Splendor” was sanctioned and “Commencement Certificate” was granted on 11.04.2013. The complainants in above complaints are allottees of flats in the buildings “MM Spectra” as such these complaints are decided by a common order.

3. Shamik Bagchi and Ms. Vaishali Bagchi have filed CC/2060/2016, for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover possession of Flat No.1601, in the building “MM Spectra” to them, complete in all respect as per specifications, forthwith, (ii) to pay interest @18% per annum, on their deposit from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, (iii) to hold that remaining 3% price of flat would be payable only after payment made of the opposite parties for compensation for delay in possession and harassment and mental agony, (iv) to pay Rs.854250/-, with interest @24% per annum towards rent paid by the complainants due to delay in delivery of possession till the date of actual possession, (v) to pay Rs.50/- lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (vi) to pay Rs.2/- lacs, as the costs of litigation; and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Shamik Bagchi and Ms. Vaishali Bagchi have stated that M/s. M.M. Developers- Shramjivi (opposite party-1) was a registered Partnership Firm and other opposite parties were its partners. The opposite parties launched a project of group housing, namely “MM Spectra” at C.S.T. No.61(part), 61/130 to 135, 61/138 to 146, village Chembur, Municipal Corporation Ward “M West”, Eastern Express Highway, Chembur (East), Mumbai in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of it. The complainants booked a flat and deposited Rs.10/- lacs on 09.10.2012 and Rs.773664 on 12.11.2012. The opposite parties allotted Flat No.1601, admeasuring 647 sq.ft. carpet + 308 sq.ft. useable carpet area with Podium Car parking space, for total consideration of Rs.11235400/- in the building “MM Spectra” to the complainants and executed an Agreement For Sale dated 19.09.2013, in their favour. An amount of Rs.187140/- was also payable on miscellaneous heads. The complainants timely deposited their instalments as per demand and paid total Rs.11998011/- up to 15.02.2015. The complainants took loan of Rs.9018339/- from HDFC Limited and were paying EMI of Rs.86152/-. Vide clause-7 of the agreement, the opposite parties promised to handover possession till 30.06.2014, with grace period of six months and if possession was not handed over till 31.12.2014, the opposite parties agreed to pay interest @12% per a

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