Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1447
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, PRESIDING MEMBER, INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER
AMANDEEP SINGH BAWA – Appellant
Versus
DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 567 OF 2018
For the Complainants: Mr. Anand Prakash, Ms.Nandini Singla
For the Opp.Party: Mr. Pravin Mahajan, Ms. Seema Sundd, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Ms.Sonia Dhamija, Mr. Drouhn Garg, Mr. Abhishek S.
The court established that unfair contractual terms are not binding and reinforced consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 21 - Complaint against builder for delay in possession of flat - It was held that the builder's plea of contractual obligation is invalid as per Supreme Court precedent establishing that unfair contractual terms are not binding - Delay in possession noted with compensation due. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Commission affirmed its jurisdiction over complaints exceeding the value of one crore, rejecting the OP's claims related to limitation and commercial purpose of purchase. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The complainants alleged failure of the builder to deliver possession of their flat, bringing forth their complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, claiming compensation and asserting rights as consumers.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the complaint, determining the delay in possession justified compensation as previously outlined by the Supreme Court's determination of unfair trade practices.
Issues: The core issues included the jurisdiction of the commission, contractual obligations, and obligations concerning fair trade practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled against provisions binding the consumer under unfair terms, emphasizing protective consumer rights under the law and rejecting claims of limitation and commercial intent due to lack of evidence.
Result: Consumer complaints allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer complaint citing failure to deliver possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. objections to jurisdiction and limitations discussed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. delay in possession with reference to contractual obligations. (Para 8) |
| 4. decision outlines principles regarding unfair contractual terms. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling favoring consumer complaints. (Para 10) |
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER
1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed under Section 12 r/w Section 21 (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by the Complainants against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for:-
2. It is averred in the Complaint that: -
3. The OP in their written statement/reply dated 04.06.2018 stated that: -
4. Complainant in his rejoinder dated 02.09.2019, while reiterating the pleas taken in their complaint and denying the allegations in the reply of OP, stated that the value of the property along with compensation claimed is above Rs. 1 Cr., cause of action to file the complaint have arisen on failure of OP to give legal and actual possession, Complainants have denied delay in payments. Evidence by way of an Affidavit was filed by the complainant on 02.09.2019 broadly on the lines of averments made in the complaint dated 01.03.2018.. OP filed their Evidence by way of an Affidavit on 18.09.2019.
5. The details of the flats allotted to the Complainants:-
[1]Final area 1900 sq. ft., increase of 19 sq. ft.
6. After the judgement was reserved for pronouncement, an IA No. 8499/2022 was filed by the counsel of OP on 06.09.2022, seeking re-hearing of the complaint and to lead oral arguments. Notice for hearing was sent to both the parties for 09.06.2022. On this date counsel for OP was heard and judgement was reserved again.
7. The contention of OP that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction is not valid. Under Section 21 of the Act, Commission has the jurisdiction where value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs one crore. The objection that the Complaint is barred by limitation is also not accepted. The contention that complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the unit for commercial purpose is also rejected. No such evidence has been adduced by the OP in this regard, that the Complainant has bought the unit for commercial purpose The plea that delay was due to reasons beyond the control of OP is not valid. There is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the OP in that regard.’ The contention of the OP that the parties are bound by the agreement is also not acceptable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raglivan II (2019) CPJ 34 (SC) decided on 02.04.2019 held that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder ......... the incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute 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 flats by the builder ........., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms.”
8. In the instant case, there is an delay in handing over the possession of flat by the OP. The plea of OP for entitlement of compensation to the complainant in accordance with clause provisions of IFBA is not valid.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Consumer Complaints are allowed/disposed off with the following directions/reliefs:
10. The pending IA’s, in any of the Consumer Complaints, if any, also stands disposed off.
| Sr No | Particulars |
|---|---|
| 1 | Project Name/Location etc |
| Hyde Park Estate, Mullanpur New Chandigarh | |
| 2 | Apartment no |
| R2-F711, with parking no. P-2F | |
| 3 | Siz |
