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) 171

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. 2683 OF 2017

1. RAMAN ARORA

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. DELCO REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

THROUGH ITS MD,
REGD. OFFICE AT: I-E,JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX,

NEW DELHI-110055

...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

&nbsp

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT

For the Complainant :

For the Complainant : Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: MRS. KAJAL CHANDRA, MS. PRERNA CHOPRA & MS. VERTIKA JAISWAL
For the Respondent:

ORDER

 

(a) direct the opposite party to refund the amount of a sum of 1,00,12,879.60/- paid by the Complainant towards the purchase of the plot being No. SK-A 30, Samavana, Shakrila, Kuthar, P.O., Kuthar, Tehsil-Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173206;

 

(b) direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of 87,70,682/- towards an interest at the rate 18% per annum on the amount i.e., 1,00,12,879.60/- paid by Complainant towards the cost of the flat with effect from the date of each payment till its realization;

 

(c) direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of 25,00,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and trauma caused by the Opposite Party;

 

(d) direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of 2,00,000/- towards the costs of litigation;

 

(e) other Exemplary damages that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit in the facts and circumstances where Opposite Party has committed breach of trust and cheating the Complainant and may other innocent people like the Complainant in the interest of justice;

 

f) any other reliefs that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in favour of the Complainant in the circumstances of the case. 

 

g) pass such other Orders or further Orders in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite Parties as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.

 

“16    Without prejudice to company’s aforesaid rights, the company may at its own sole discretion waive the breach by the Allottee in not making payments as per the Payment Plan, but on the condition that the Allottee shall pay to the Company, interest which shall be charged for the first nine (90) days from the due date @15% per annum with quarterly rests and for all periods exceeding first ninety (90) days after the due date @ 18% p.a. with quarterly rests”

 

10(d)  In the event the Company fails to offer possession of the said plot, within twenty four (24) months from the date of the application, then after ninety (90) days from the expiry of twenty four (24) months subject to the Allottee having made all payments as per the Payment Plan, and subject to the terms, conditions of this Agreement and barring force majeure circumstances, the company shall pay compensation to the Allottee, calculated at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. mtr. Per month (Rs.125/- per sq. yd. approx.. per month) on the area of the said plot which both parties have agreed is a just and equitable estimate of the damages that the allottee may suffer and the allottee agrees that he/they shall not have any other claims/rights whatsoever.  The adjustment of compensation shall be done at the time of execution of the conveyance deed.

 

“6.7.  A terms of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

 

7.       In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

 

......................J

R.K. AGRAWAL

PRESIDENT

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