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

2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 572

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. Viswanath, PRESIDING MEMBER, Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, MEMBER
M/S. SHIVALIK VIHAR SITES PVT. LTD. & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 4378 OF 2010



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka
For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Pal Sharma

Builders must uphold consumer rights and deliver on property agreements; failure incurs refund obligations, irrespective of alleged coercion claims.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 3 and Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal against order directing refund to consumer for delayed possession - Builders were found to have issued allotment letters under duress and failed to deliver on promised timelines - Consumer has the right to seek remedies under the act against frivolous claims - Issues related to limitation in the context of consumer rights highlighted. (Paras 12 and 4)

(B) Maintenance of Consumer Protection rights - The consumer is dominus litis and has the right to choose the forum - Delay and frivolous proceedings do not override consumer rights and expedite processes to ensure justice. (Paras 12 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The complaint was initially filed in response to failure to deliver possession of a booked flat in a timely manner by the builders, coupled with the unchallenged receipt of the booking amount by them. Responses and allegations of coercion arose during litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decision of the State Commission directing refund and confirmed the significance of finding in consumer complaints adjudication.

Issues: The crucial issues revolved around the validity of the allotment documents under alleged duress, consumer protection rights, and the implications of limitation on the claims made.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the builders were in habitual violation of consumer trust and that delays did not negate the consumers' rights to refunds; emphasizing non-frivolous actions should not obstruct consumer recourse to justice.

Result: The revision petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. consumer's right to choose forum discussed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. final observations and decisions on appeals. (Para 3 , 10 , 11)
3. details of the consumer complaint and builders' actions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's findings on builders' liability. (Para 7 , 8)
5. consumer protection provisions and limitation implications. (Para 12)
ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

2. Review Application No. 127 of 2020, filed for review/recall of the order dated 17.06.2020, passed in this revision, was listed on 27.09.2021. As the arguments in review application and in the revision are same, we asked the counsel for the parties to argue the revision on merit, so that the controversy be decided finally.

3. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, dated 04.11.2010, passed in Appeal No. 15 of 2009 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 08.12.2008, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 664 of 2008) whereby the complaint was dismissed and the appeal was allowed and the petitioners were directed to refund the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent, within 30 days. After 30 days, the interest was enhanced @ 12% per annum.

4. Kuldeep Singh (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 664 of 2008, for directing the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the builders), (i) to refund an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs along with interest @ 15 % p.a., w.e.f. 04.03.2006 till its realization (ii) to pay Rs. 3 lakhs, as punitive damages, (iii) to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, (iv) to pay Rs. 11000/- as the cost of the litigation and (v) any other relief as may be deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.

5. It has been stated in the complaint that the builders were the 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 a housing project in the name of “Shivalik Apartments Kharar” in 2005 and made various lucrative advertisements. The complainant, enamoured by the feature of the scheme, booked a flat on 04.03.2006 and paid full and final amount of Rs. 11 lakhs. Total sale price of the flat was Rs. 14 lakhs but Rs. 3 lakhs was given as discount and parking place free of cost, in the scheme of the builders. He was allotted Flat No. 104, on First floor, Shivalik Apartments Kharar, admeasuring covered area of 802 sq. ft. and allotment letter dated 04.03.2006 was given to him, in which the promised period of handing over possession was till 04.04.2007. The complainant perturbed by the slow pace of construction and met the builders in December, 2006. The builders assured that the tempo of construction would pick up very soon and possession would be delivered on promised time. In April, 2007, the complainant again visited the site and found that even first floor construction was not completed. The builders again assured for completing constructions and giving possession, within three months. The complainant again visited the site, in August, 2007, the builders then assured for completing construction and giving possession, till December, 2007. The complainant again visited the site on 24.03.2008 and found that the builders had removed the board of “Shivalik Vihar Sites Private Limited” and in its place painted “Sea Infrastructure”. These change in the name casted a doubt in the mind of the complainant. The complainant again visited the site on 06.05.2008 and found that wall and linter of 4th floor was laid although the building was to be raised up to sixth floor. The complainant then gave a legal notice dated 12.05.2008, through registered post for refund the money realized from him. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 11.06.2

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top