Consumer agreements containing one-sided terms can restrict buyers' rights, allowing claims under consumer protection laws despite regulatory statutes.

R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Deepak Verma and his wife (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party, M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Flat alongwith interest as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand-over the possession of the Flat booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of “Ansal Crown Heights” located at Sector 80, Faridabad, Haryana.

It has been averred in the Complaint that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Group Housing Project in the name and style of “Ansal Crown Heights” located at Sector 80, Faridabad, Haryana. The Complainants booked a residential flat for their personal use in the said Project. Flat No. 1501, Tower No. 3 admeasuring 2118 sq. ft. was allotted to the Complainants. Flat Buyers Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 12.12.2011. As per Clause 4 of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, i.e., by 12.12.2014. The Complainants had opted for Construction Linked Payment Plan and had deposited ₹58,48,984/- on different dates as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Flat within stipulated period. Whenever the Complainants raised queries with the Opposite Party Developer regarding handing over the possession, the Developer neither provided any specific date for the delivery of the possession nor refunded the amount deposited by the Complainants. They have lost trust on the Opposite Party Developer and are no longer interested in having possession of the Flat. Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Developer, the Complainants has filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:

a) Grant a sum of Rs.1,24,35,523/- (principal amount of Rs.58,48,984/- along with compensation in the form of interest amounting to Rs.65,86,539/- at the rate of 18 % per annum as calculated upto 30.04.2019, along with pendent lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate of interest which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice, from the date of making payments till the date of actual realization of the payment;

b) Grant cost of litigation to the Complainants;

c) Any other order, relief or direction which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite Party.”

The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party Developer by filing its Written Statement in which the Opposite Party Developer took preliminary objection that the Complaint is not maintainable as the terms of the Agreement are binding on both the Complainants and the Opposite Party and therefore, this does not give any rise to any cause of action entitling the Complainants to file the purported Complaint; the Project is registered under RERA, 2016 and therefore, in terms of RERA, this Commission is barred from entertaining the present Complaint and sincet was stated that stated that the delay in completion of Project occurred due to delay on the part of the Directorate of Town & Country Planning Haryana in renewing the license of the Opposite Party and the Construction work was affected on account of the contractor appointed by the Developer having not completed the construction in time and thereafter having created hindrance in completion of the Project by another contractor. It is also alleged that out of ten towers, construction work is going on