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) 938

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 Complainant:Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Opp.Party:Mr. Hitesh Rajpurohit, Advocate
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate

Developers must fulfill contractual obligations and provide timely possession; failure results in a right to compensation, particularly in form of interest on deposits.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Slums Improvement (Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971 - Delay in possession of flats due to construction delays and relocation of slum dwellers - Complainants are entitled to receive compensation in the form of interest on deposits for delayed possession as stipulated in the agreement. (Paras 12 and 14)

(B) Contractual Obligations - Delay in delivering possession - Appellants made full payments as per contract and were justified in seeking possession and compensation for delays. (Paras 11 and 13)

Facts of the case:
The complainants booked flats in the building “MM Spectra” but faced undue delays in possession despite full payments made per the contractual agreement, resulting in financial burdens and mental distress.

Findings of Court:
The court found an unreasonable delay in the offering of possession, which constituted a deficiency of service, and ruled that compensation should be paid in interest form.

Issues: The main issue examined was the unreasonable delay in possession and the associated contractual obligations of the developers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that delays in possession necessitate remittance of compensation by developers to buyers in accordance with agreed terms, and stipulations on interest for delayed possession were enforceable.

Result: Complaints partly allowed; opposite parties ordered to complete construction and pay compensation for delay.

Table of Content
1. arguments presented by both parties regarding compensation. (Para 1 , 11 , 13)
2. facts regarding booking and delay in possession. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
3. observation of the court on delays and lack of possession. (Para 3 , 7)
4. court's decision acknowledges contractual obligations and compensation. (Para 12 , 14)
5. final order and resolution of the court. (Para 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 30.06.201

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