Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 592
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
PARUL JAIN – Appellant
Versus
RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 884 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Arjun Jain, Advocate, Ms. Anushree Narain, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi, Advocate, Mr. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shivendra Dwiwedi, Adv., Mr. Tejaswani Misra, Adv.
The court ruled that delay in property possession constitutes deficiency in service, obligating the promoter to refund the buyer's money with interest.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Delay in delivery of possession - Complainant booked a residential unit but did not receive possession by promised date, alleging deficiency in service against the promoters. - The opposite party cited reasons of Force Majeure which were found irrelevant as they pertained to actions prior to the allotment date of 2014. - The Commission ruled that the complainant is entitled to a refund of the deposited amount alongwith simple interest, drawing on precedent set in previous cases. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Deficiency in Service - The court reinforced the principle that buyers cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession of property. The cited case from the Supreme Court established grounds for entitlement to refunds due to delays. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The complainant booked a flat in 2014, payment was made, but possession was not given by the stipulated timeline of September 2015. Subsequent legal proceedings were initiated due to non-delivery of the property, leading to the claim for refund and additional charges.
Findings of Court:
The opposite parties were ordered to refund Rs.79,32,245/- with interest and pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay by the opposite party constituted deficiency in service warranting a refund with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that delays attributed to the opposite party did not support a claim of Force Majeure as they related to a period before the contract execution. Complainant entitled to refund as per established precedent.
Result: The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the refund along with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delays in possession lead to refunds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. force majeure claims must be grounded in relevant timeframes. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consumer entitled to interest and costs for delayed possession. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. refund ordered with interest to complainant. (Para 7) |
1. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant had booked a residential unit of 1825 sq. ft. for consideration amount of Rs.84,85,125/- in the project of the opposite party, namely, Rise, situated at Sector 37-D , Gurgaon, Haryana. A unit bearing no.A-1901 on the 19th floor in Tower-A of the project was allotted to the complainant on 28.03.2014. Seller and Buyer agreement dated 27.03.2014 was executed between the parties. As per clause 15 of the said agreement, possession of the subject flat was to be handed over to the complainant by the opposite party by September, 2015 excluding grace period of 120 days for applying and obtaining the occupancy certificate. A sum of Rs.79,32,245/- already has been paid by the complainant towards consideration amount. He had also availed home loan from SBI.
2. Since the opposite party had failed to deliver possession of the subject flat till 2017, the complainant filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. and refund of processing charges of Rs.5000/- towards loan with interest @ 15% p.a. and Rs.9,10,000/- towards interest of loan amount alongwith interest @ 15% and Rs.3,12,000/- towards rental charges, Rs.15.00 lakh towards mental harassment and agony and Rs.55,000/- towards legal notice and Rs.2,20,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. The claim is contested by the opposite party. It is submitted that due to the fact that contractor to whom the construction work was given, did not perform well, delay had occurred. It was also contended that there was shortage of supply of construction material because of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana dated 27.02.2012 and the project further got delayed due to the order of the NGT to use only recycled water. It is further contended that in the case of Sunil Singh Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors. (CWP No.20032 of 2008), the Punjab and Haryana High Court restricted use of ground water for construction purpose and which halted the construction work for 11 months. It is further submitted that due to announcement of liberal policy of the government favouring labourers in MNREGA, there was shortage of labour. There was shortage of labour also because of unfinished work relating to Common Wealth Games and for this reason, construction was delayed. It is submitted that claim is highly inflated. It is submitted that because of Force Majeure reason, the delay had occurred. It is submitted that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Parties led their evidences.
5. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, there is delay in delivery of the possession of the subject flat to the complainant. Admittedly, the possession was to be given by September, 2015 but till date, there is no offer of possession from the side of the opposite party. Rather opposite party had submitted that they had sought more time for completion of construction in the matter pending before RERA Haryana. It is submitted that matter before RERA Haryana was filed vide application dated 31.07.2017 and 22.09.2017. It is, therefore, apparent that jurisdiction of RERA was invoked only after the expiry of period of delivery of possession to the complainant. Counsel for the complainant submits that all these reasons given towards Force Majeure relate to the period before March, 2014 the year, in which the subject flat was allotted to the complainant. It is argued that these contentions had no merit. Counsel for the opposite party
