Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 939
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Mrs. ANJU VINOD SARASWAT – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED – Respondent
Consumer Case No. 266 of 2014
For the Complainant: MR. SANJEEV KUMAR VARMA
For the Opp.Party:Ms Neha Gupta, Advocate, Mr Rishabh Pant, Advocate
Delay in possession of booked property constitutes deficiency in service, entitling refund with interest.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice - Non-completion of construction and delay in possession of booked property - Consumer entitled to a refund of payment with interest due to unreasonable delays in meeting contractual obligations. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) The roles of parties - Opposite party contended complainants are investors and not consumers - Claim rejected since no evidence presented by opposite party to support this claim. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
Delayed possession of property booked by complainant, who paid substantial sum upfront. Complainant sought refund and damages for mental agony due to non-fulfillment of promises by the builder.
Findings of Court:
Delay in possession admitted by opposite party - Complainant deemed consumer despite opposite party's assertions.
Issues: Whether complainants’ delay is attributable to the opposite party, and the definition of 'consumer' under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held delay by the opposite party in handing over possession amounts to deficiency in service, and as such, the complainant is entitled to a refund with interest.
Result: Complaint allowed with directions for refund and compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to consumer complaint. (Para 1) |
| 2. details regarding booking and delay in possession. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. opposite party's defense against claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. claim of deficiency in service. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's examination of opposite party's claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's conclusion on unreasonable delay. (Para 10) |
| 7. final ruling and order. (Para 11 , 12) |
This complaint is filed under section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter ‘Act’) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by M/s Sahara Prime City Limited, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, the opposite party, in respect of an independent semi-detached house booked by the complainants in project ‘Sahara Prime City’, Hardoi Road, Lucknow (in short ‘the project’) promoted and developed by the opposite party.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked an independent, semi-detached house (hereinafter, the ‘Unit’) with the opposite party in the project on 29.07.2011 by paying a booking amount of Rs.5.29.594/-. As per letter dated 29.07.2011 issued by the opposite party, Unit no. S4/12A (Unit Code 061) with unit area 292.81 sq m and plot area of 278.90 sq m was allotted to the complainant at a sale consideration of Rs.99,50,000/-. Possession of the said unit was promised as per payment plan extending to 18 months in this letter, i.e., by 12.05.2013. On 30.07.2011, the opposite party issued a letter that a discount against cash down payment of Rs 5,37,300/- had been extended to the complainant. However, despite timely payments made by the complainant through 18 instalments after availing a loan of Rs 30 lakhs from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Lucknow, the construction of the flat has not been completed by the opposite party till the date of filing of the complaint. No offer of possession has also been made by the opposite party despite the lapse of nearly 1 year 2 months as on the date of filing of this complaint, i.e., 30.07.2014. It is averred that the opposite party has been making false promises of completion of the project and is now citing reasons ‘beyond their control’ to cover the deficiency in service.
3. It is averred by the complainant that at the time of booking of the unit she was assured by the opposite party that the project would be completed in 18 months. As on February 2013, she had paid Rs 96,94,607/- which amounted to 97% of the total cost. This included the loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd which was disbursed in 6 instalments. The opposite party has been raising demands which the complainant has been complying with. She paid Rs.2,61,969/- vide cheque dated 27.01.2014 and Rs.12,73,698/- vide two cheques dated 12.02.2014 against full and final payment. Thereafter, another demand letter was issued dated 20.03.2014 for Rs.16,400/- for electrical maintenance charges and Rs.3,48,250/- on account of Sales Tax while conveying that the possession of the house would be done by 31.12.2014. She has been repeatedly writing to the opposite party since 13.03.2012 to enquire about the status of her unit in the said project but has received no reply. The complainant submits that she was orally informed at the site that the project would be completed by September-October 2013 but as per situation on ground the construction is hopelessly behind schedule and is unlikely to be completed anytime soon. As the project has been inordinately delayed, complainant has claimed refund of the amount deposited along with compensation by way of interest etc and is before us with the following prayer seeking:
(a) Allow the instant complaint;
(b) Direct the opposite parties to immediately handover possession of the said house to the complainant within specified time without claiming any other amount as she had already made total payment of Rs.1,13,38,649/-, i.e., excess payment of Rs.13,88,649/- against total cost of house of Rs.99,50,000/-;
And
Direct the opposite parties to fulfil the necessary
