Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 484
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
RAJAN HANDA – Appellant
Versus
M/S. M3M INDIA DEVELOPERS LIMITED – Respondent
Consumer Case No. 2387 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. A.R. Takkar
The court held that a builder's unfair practices, including issuing possession notices without completing construction, justified refund claims.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections pertaining to unfair trade practices - Builder failed to deliver possession as per agreement and adopted deceptive practices, leading to complaint for refund with interest. (Paras 3, 9)
(B) Builder agreements - Terms appeared one-sided, and construction not completed, thus refund of deposits warranted along with interest. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
Complainant filed for refund of 46,36,730/- paid for flat due to builder's failure to complete construction and unfair demands. Builder's possession notice was issued without completion.
Findings of Court:
Builder must refund amount with interest as the complainant was justified in not taking possession due to incomplete construction.
Issues: The court addressed unfair practices by the builder regarding possession notices and payment schedules.
Ratio Decidendi: Contractual obligations are void if a purchaser is coerced into unfair terms; requisite conditions must be fulfilled for possession.
Result: Complaint allowed with a direction for refund of the deposit with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. builder failed to deliver the promised residential unit. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. complaint regarding unconstitutional practices upheld. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussed obligations of builder under the buyer's agreement. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. unfair and deceptive practices warrant refund. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling establishes consumer rights in real estate. (Para 10) |
ORDER
IA/18672/2017,IA/7681/2018,IA/12704/2018,IA/9106/2019 & IA/5724/2020,
For the reasons stated in the applications, IAs are allowed.
JUDGEMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),
PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate, for the opposite parties, through video conferencing.
2. Sh. Rajan Handa (the complainant) has filed this complaint for directing M3M India Private Limited and another (opposite-parties), (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund the entire amount of Rs.46,36,730/- along with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 14.05.2012 till the date of actual refund as deposited by him; (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, for mental trauma, harassment and hardship caused to the complainant; (iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as the cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which the Commission deems fit and proper, in the fact and circumstances of the case, be passed.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint are that the builder was a company, engaged in the business of development and construction of multi-story residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builder launched for construction of residential complex in the name of “M3M WOODSHIRE” in Sector-107, Gurgaon, Haryana, in 2012. The complainant booked a 2BHK + Study flat, admeasuring of 1534 Sq. ft, in “M3M WOODSHIRE” in April, 2012. The complainant deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- on 14.05.2012, through cheque No. 763315, (encashed on 09.06.2012), vide Receipt No. 9720, Rs.2,23,176/- on 12.07.2012, vide Receipt No. 10356 and Rs.6,88,066/- on 03.01.2013, vide Receipt No. 11608 (total Rs.14,11,242/-). A provisional allotment letter dated 13.02.2013 was issued to the complainant, allotting Flat No. 1002, Tower No. B03, 10th Floor, in aforesaid project, admeasuring 1534 Sq. ft. Along with this allotment letter, a “Construction Linked Payment Plan” was attached, in which Rs.13,68,941/- had to be paid by 03.01.2013. 95% of total sale consideration had to be paid in 12 instalments, on start of different level of construction up to commencement of external plaster and 5% had to be paid within 30 days of the notice of possession. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.4,00,000/- on 05.12.2013, vide Receipt No. 17631, Rs.5,00,000/- on 05.12.2013, vide Receipt No. 17632, Rs.15,25,488/- on 10.01.2014, vide Receipt No. 18747 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.01.2014, vide Receipt No. 18748 (total Rs.29,25,488/-). Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (ABA) was executed on 25.03.2014. In the ABA, promised date of possession was mentioned as 36 months with grace period of 180 days, from the date of commencement of the construction. In ABA “Construction Linked Payment Plan” was attached and total cost of the flat was shown as Rs.84,89,362/- and the time was an essence of the contract. The complainant requested the builder to change the “Construction Linked Payment Plan” to “Deferred Payment Plan” i.e the remaining amount be realised at the time of possession. The builder agreed the request. The builder through addendum dated 23.05.2014 amended the ABA dated 25.03.2014. Total cost of the apartment was changed to Rs.1,00,23,362/- and instead of 13 instalments, now six instalments payment schedule was attached to this addendum, enhancing the amount of instalments, which was deceptive. The builder issued possession notice dated 28.04.2017, demanding Rs.60,88,926/- (including the stamp charges). The complainant, then, visited the site and found that the construction work was still in progress. Club building, conveni
