SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 909

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, DR. INDER JIT SINGH, JJ
MATHEW GEORGE & 47 ORS. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
Consumer Case No. 945 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Complainants: Mr. Govind Jee
For the Opp.Party: Ms. Garima Jain

Delayed compensation is payable at 6% per annum on buyers' deposits until actual possession is handed over.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12(1)(c) - Delay in possession - Home buyers alleged compensatory interest for delayed possession, unfair charges, and unmet promised amenities from the developer - The complaints partly allowed for delayed compensation and construction of amenities. (Paras 2, 8, 11)

(B) Compensation and Fees - The developer was held liable for delayed possession compensation at 6% per annum and ordered to construct promised amenities, but claims for legal fees and parking charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
51 home buyers collectively filed a complaint against the developer for various grievances including delay in possession, exorbitant charges, and unmet promises regarding amenities after purchasing units in the developer's housing project in 2011. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court determined the due date of possession for delayed compensation and ruled on the merits of various claims made by the complainants. (Paras 8)

Issues: Were the charges for legal fees and parking justified, and what compensation was owed for the delay in possession? (Paras 5, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: Delayed compensation was dictated by the dates in the payment plan, and unsubstantiated claims for additional fees were not granted. (Paras 7, 8)

Result: Complaint partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. homebuyers claim against the developer for delayed possession and additional charges. (Para 3 , 4)
2. delay in filing the response by the developer leading to default. (Para 5)
3. court analyzed previous decisions regarding similar charges and compensation. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10)
4. determination of interest rates for delayed possession. (Para 8)
5. court's decision and order for compensation and construction. (Para 11)
ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Govind Jee, Advocate, for the complainants and Ms. Garima Jain, Advocate, for opposite party.

2. 51 sets of home buyers of the opposite party have filed above complaint as a representative case. The permission under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been granted by this Commission on 05.07.2019 and notices have been published in two local newspapers. Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to (i) pay each of the complainants compensatory interest @18% per annum, for the total period of delay in handing over possession as indicated in para 11.11 of the complaint; (ii) to refund, illegally charged car parking fee with interest @18% per annum,’ (iii) to refund illegally charged “legal fee” with interest @18 % per annum; (iv) to refund the fee charged towards BESCOM & BWSSB charges after deducting as per actual with an interest @18 % per annum; (v) direct opposite party to provide Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store as promised in Brochure, in time bound manner, else pay compensation of Rs.500000/- to each complainants and each buyer having same interest and (vi) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The complainants stated that M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited (the opposite party) (the developer) was a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The developer launched a project of group housing in the name of “Fiesta Homes by SJR Prime”, at Doddanagarmangala village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in the year 2011. The developer widely advertised the project and represented for on time delivery of possession and world class modern facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representation and tall promises of the developer, all the complainants booked one flat each for them, in the 2012. The details of date of booking, flat number etc. are given in Exhibit PW/5.

4. The facts relating to complainant-44 are stated herewith. The developer allotted Unit No.-604 (admeasuring 1037 sq.ft.), Block Magnifica to complainant-44, vide allotment letter dated 26.03.2012. The developer and the owner of the land executed an Agreement to Sell dated 31.03.2012, in respect of undivided proportionate saleable area of land for Rs.1467600/-. The developer executed a Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2012, in favour of complainant-44, for construction of above flat, showing total cost of construction as Rs.2612727/-. Schedule-E of this agreement contained “Construction Linked Payment Plan” under which, total sale consideration was payable in 12 instalments on different levels of the construction. Clause-6.1 of the agreement provided date of completion of construction as March, 2014 with six months grace period. According to the payment plan, 90% of total cost was realized time to time. However, the construction was not completed on due date. It has been stated that the construction was delayed for a period of 40 months from due date. The developer obtained “Occupancy Certificate” on 17.05.2017. Thereafter, possession was offered. Title deeds were executed from January, 2018 onward. At the time of offer of possession, delayed compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. per month of the super area. On taking possession, it was noticed that the construction was not done as per specification. The home buyers gave emai

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top