Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 518
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
M/S. AARCITY BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SUBHASH SHARMA & ANR. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2021
For the Appellant: Mr. Pawan Choudhary
For the Respondent: N/A
Builders must adhere to contractual timelines for possession delivery; failure results in liability for refunds and compensation.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections relevant to consumer disputes and grievance redressal - Builders' obligations concerning delivery of possession and compensation for delay - The appellant failed to deliver possession according to the agreed schedule, resulting in claims for refund, interest, and compensation. (Paras 2, 4, 10)
(B) Construction Contracts - Appellants' defense based on delay in payments made by the complainant was rejected as unjustified; the builders did not fulfill their construction obligations as per the agreement. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The builders alleged delays in construction of a residential complex, leading the complainant to seek a refund and compensation due to their failure to deliver possession.
Findings of Court:
The builder did not produce the necessary documentation to prove completion of construction, and the commission's order for refund and compensation was justified.
Issues: Key issues included the builders’ failure to defend against allegations of delay and the implications of transferring possession rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the builders failed on their contractual obligations and upheld the State Commission's order based on the complainant's rights as a subsequent transferee.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing and procedural compliance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the complaint regarding construction delays. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellant's responsibility and allegations against them. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's findings on builder's obligations. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion on the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 11) |
1. Heard Mr. Pawan Choudhary, Advocate, for the appellant, through video conferencing.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, dated 18.02.2020, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 378 of 2017, allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to refund Rs.21 lakhs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit within 45 days and thereafter interest @ 12% per annum till its realization, Rs. one lakh as the compensation and Rs.21000/- as the cost of litigation.
3. The office has submitted report that this appeal has been filed with delay of 400 days. Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, has directed to exclude the limitation from 15.03.2020. In the present case, impugned order was passed on 18.02.2020 and certified copy was dispatched on 20.03.2020 as such the appeal is treated within time, in view of the order of Apex Court.
4. Subhash Sharma (respondent-1) filed Consumer Complaint No. 378 of 2017 for directing M/s. Aarcity Builders Private Limited (the appellant) and Hisar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-2), (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, (iii) to pay Rs. one lakh as the cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which the Commission deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, be passed.
5. The facts as stated in the complaint are that the builders were companies, engaged in business of development and construction of multi-story residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builders launched for construction of residential complex in the name of “Aarcity-Regency Park” in Sector-9 and 11, Hisar, Haryana, in 2012. Anindita Sharma and Anuradha Sharma (the daughter-in-laws of the complainant) booked a 3BHK flat, admeasuring of 1625 Sq. ft, in “Aarcity-Regency Park” in 2012 and they were allotted Flat No. D-0804, Tower-D at 8th Floor. Basic price of the flat was Rs.48,10,625/-. Flat Buyer Agreement (for short FBA) was executed on 05.11.2012. With prior permission of the builders, the aforesaid flat was transferred to the complainant on 22.03.2013 by the original allottees. The original allottees/ complainant deposited Rs.7,00,000/- on 08.07.2012, Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.08.2012, Rs.4,00,000/- on 13.12.2012, Rs.4,00,000/- on 07.03.2013, Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.04.2013 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 07.02.2014 (total Rs.21,00,000/-). The complainant opted for “Construction Link Payment Plan”. In clause-18 of the FBA, promised period of possession was mentioned as 36 months with grace period of 90 days, from the date of allotment letter. After paying the instalment in February, 2014, the complainant visited the site and found that the construction was stopped, since a long time. The complainant then met the builder and inquired for the reason of stopping construction then they informed that as the labourers were not available as such the construction was stopped. They assured that they would arrange the labourers and start construction soon. Although the builders issued demand letters but on the site, no construction was not going on since 2013, as such the demand letters after February, 2014 were not honoured. Under the FBA, the builder had to deliver of possession, till November, 2015 but the builder was not showing any interest to complete the construction. Due to unreasonable delay in delivery of the possession, the complainant requested to return his money along with interest, through legal notice dated 04.04.2017, but no re
