Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1849
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, CJ, DR. SADHNA SHANKER, J
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
ANITA – Respondent
FA/890/2021
For the Petitioner: M/S. SKV ASSOCIATES
For the Respondent: MR. N. SHOKEEN & R. SINGH
The court ruled that failure to deliver possession by the builder constitutes a deficiency in service, and multiple compensations for singular deficiency are not justifiable.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19 - Appeal against State Commission's order for possession of shop - Complainant alleged deficiency in service by builder company for delay in possession - State Commission directed builder to deliver possession and awarded compensation. (Paras 1, 4, 7)
(B) Definition of Consumer - Issue of locus standi raised by builder company regarding complainant's status as consumer under the Act - Court reaffirmed self-employment criterion for consumer definition. (Paras 6, 9, 14)
(C) Deficiency in Service - Builder company failed to deliver possession within agreed timeline, leading to a ruling of deficiency in service. (Paras 16)
(D) Multiple Compensation - Court ruled against awarding multiple compensations for singular deficiency in service. (Paras 17) (E) Interest Rate - Court modified interest rate on compensation to 6% per annum based on legal precedent. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
Complainant applied for allotment of shop in 2006, paid Rs. 22,00,000/- but possession was not delivered by the builder company as per agreement. (Paras 4, 15)
Findings of Court:
Builder company failed to fulfill service obligations, leading to compensation modification. (Paras 16, 20)
Issues: Whether there was a deficiency in service and if the complainant had locus standi as a consumer. (Paras 13)
Ratio Decidendi: Builder company’s failure to deliver possession constituted deficiency in service; multiple compensations for singular deficiency are not justifiable; interest rate modified to 6%. (Paras 16, 17, 18)
Result: Appeal disposed of; State Commission's order modified.
ORDER
DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (corresponding section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) by M/S TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as the “builder company”) assailing the Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 92 of 2017, whereby the complaint was allowed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the builder company and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and have perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 19.04.2021 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
3. Although the registry has reported that there is a delay of 194 days in filing the appeal but in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, the appeal is within limitation.
4. The facts, in brief, are that in the year 2006 the complainant applied for allotment of shop, for self-employment for herself and her son, in the project, namely, Radeo Drive Complex in TDI City at Kundli, of the builder company for a total cost of Rs. 27,50,000/-. Initially, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on 09.05.2006. On 29.04.2010, buyer agreement was entered between the complainant and the builder company and the builder company had allotted shop No. 188, Ground Floor, Radeo Drive Complex, TDI City, Kundli measuring super built up area of approximately 500 sq. feet. She further paid Rs.16,50,000/- on different dates in installments. In total, she has already paid Rs.22,00,000/- in different installments to the builder company. As per buyer agreement, the builder company had to hand over the possession of the shop within 24 months plus 06 months grace period i.e. by 29.10.2012, but, they failed to hand over the possession of the shop within the assured and agreed period. Thereafter, the complainant sent written representations/notices dated 03.10.2015, 14.03.2016 and 05.10.2016 regarding non delivery of the possession, but, the possession was not handed over to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that some property dealers have already been allotted shops in the mall and operating in the same building i.e. G.F. 32 to 43 (facing towards road), which was under construction but the complainant has not been given possession till date. It is alleged that even after a lapse of ten years, the said project did not complete. She requested the builder company to give possession of the shop No. GF 188 and pay compensation for delay in possession and non-performance of the contract along with interest.
5. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the builder company, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:-
(a) Direct the opposite parties to give possession of the shops No. GF-188, Rodeo Drive, Mall Cum Multiplex (NH-1), Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana measuring super area of approximately 500 sq. feet, as per the promises and guarantees of the apartment buyer agreement and pay compensation for delay in possession and non-performance of the contract, along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date promised for delivering possession i.e. 19.04.2012 of payment by the complainants till the date of its actual repayment by the opposite parties and its realization.
(b) Thus, keeping in view of the serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by opposite parties, complaints should be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs for delay in the handing over the possession, interest paid on the loan amount, for harassment, mental agony and frustration litigation expenses, inconvenience and mental agony as the complaint was constrained to the file the same because of the callous and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties.
(c
