2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1279
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
PRIYANSHU SURI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. AIMS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 3902 OF 2017
For the Complainants: MR. MADHURENDRA KUMAR, MR. SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI
For the Opp. Party: MR. MAYANK WADHWA, MS. MUSKAN GUPTA, MS. TANYA SINGH
Force majeure recognized under law allows for delay justification, yet entitles home buyers to interest compensation for late possession.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12(1)(c), 56 - Housing project - Delay in possession of flats by the developer due to force majeure conditions - Occupation certificate obtained after the due date of possession - Complainants entitled to delay compensation of 6% interest on deposit as per Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Contract Law - Force majeure - Statutory recognition of force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 - Developer not liable for delay caused by external factors beyond control. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Multiple complainants booked flats in a project but faced delay in possession due to construction halts caused by local disputes and regulatory issues. Developer issued possession offers without complying with prior conditions and justified delays citing external factors. (Paras 4, 5, 9)
Findings of Court:
Possession offered after obtaining occupation certificate suffices the agreement's terms; developer liable for interest compensation on delays past the grace period. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: Validity of delays in possession offer and the applicable compensation for such delays.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that the force majeure clause justified the delays but mandated compensation for the construction delays as per explicit contractual terms. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: The complaint is partly allowed, directing the developer to provide adjusted compensation and possession under stated conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the complaint by multiple allottees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the housing project and allegations of delay. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion of contract clauses related to possession. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court observations on completion status and validity. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. determination of compensation and application of interests. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. final orders on compensation and future actions. (Para 12) |
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Initially Priyanshu Suri and 14 others (9 sets of the allottees in “Aims Golf Avenue”) have filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties to (i) deliver possession of the flats allotted to them, complete in all respect as per specifications along with basic amenities and facilities as per agreement after obtaining ‘full occupancy certificate’ and ‘completion certificate’ and execute title deed/sub-lease deed within stipulated period; (ii) revoke illegal demands and invalid offer of possession and issue fresh offer of possession after obtaining ‘full occupation certificate’; (iii) not to charge extra amount in the head of increased super area; (iv) declare revised layout plan and illegal; (v) pay delay compensation in the form of interest @24% per annum on the deposit of the complainants for the delayed period of handing over possession; (vi) bear entire increased expenses for sub-lease deed and its registration due to increase of circle rate due to delay in handing over possession; (vii) award Rs.50000/- per month as punitive damages to each of the allottees, for causing unreasonable delay in handing over possession; (viii) pay Rs.10/- lacs to each of the allottees, as compensation for mental pain and physical harassment; (ix) pay Rs.2/- lacs to each of the allottees as litigation costs; and (x) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.
3. The complainants filed IA/20898/2017, under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for grant of permission to file the complaint in representative capacity for the benefit of the all such allottees of the project “Aims Golf Avenue”, who are aggrieved due to delay in handing over possession and have same interest. This Commission allowed IA/20898/2017 and granted permission to file complaint in representative capacity. After publication of the notice, several impleadment applications were filed, which were allowed time to time and at present, there are 66 complainants (39 sets of the allottees). In the meantime, the opposite party obtained part ‘occupation certificate’ on 22.12.2017 and some of the complainants took possession and withdrew from the complaint. Details of the allottees is follows: -
4. The complainants stated that M/s. Aims Promoters Private Limited (the OP) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. OPs-2 and 3 were its director and OP-4 has granted lease of the project land to the OP for development of group housing project and regulatory authority of the project. The OP launched a group housing project in the name of “Aims Golf Avenue”, at Plot No.GH-02, Eco Friendly City, Sector-75, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, in the year, 2011 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities in print and electronic media. In the sale brochure and the agreement, the OP promised to provide, water, electricity, sewerage, parks, professional security system, reserved parking spaces, intercom, fire fighting, health, walking and jogging tracks, club facilities with swimming pool, gymnasium equipped with latest machinery, community centre, library, indoor and outdoor games facilities etc. Believing upon the representations of the OP, the complainants, who were in need of their own residential accommodation, booked one unit with one car parking space and deposited booking amount in th