Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC): On finding deficiency in providing services, Coram of Dr Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member), held that the builder gave false assurances to the complainant with regard to handing over the buyer for delivery of possession.

The instant complaint was filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.

In the year 2010, Mr M.K. Arora booked a unit in the project of OP. The Builder Buyer agreement was executed between the parties after the expiry of 4 years from the date of the first payment made to the OP.

As per the said agreement, the OP was supposed to hand over the possession of the said office space from the date of signing of the above-stated agreement, however, till date the possession has not been handed over by the OP. Along with this, OP unilaterally changed the size of the said unit which escalated the cost of the unit.

Allottee kept paying the OP as and when demanded by it. Later the allottee sent a legal notice to the OP asking for refund.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Deficiency of Service

Whether OP is actually deficient in providing its services to the complainant or not?

As per clause 3(a) of the Builder Buyer Agreement, OP was bound to handover the possession of the said office space within 3 years from the date of signing of the said agreement.

OP executed the said builder buyer agreement after a period of 4 years from the date of the first payment received from the allottee.

It has been well settled that the complainant cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of the hard-earned money that they have spent in order to purchase the property in question. [Ref: Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’ Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442]

In view of the above, it was held that OP was deficient in providing its services to the complainant as the OP had given false assurance to the complainant with respect to the time for delivery of possession of the said office space and kept the hard-earned money of the complainant for about 11 years.

The commission directed OP to refund the amount paid by the complainants. [Promila Arora v. Landmark Apartments (P) Ltd., Complaint Case No. 152 of 2018, decided on 29-11-2021]

Advocates before the Commission:

Complainants: Mr Sumit K Batra, Advocate

Opposite Party: Nida Doon & Simranjeet Singh, Advocate

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

One comment

  • Has the DSCDRC ordered refund of deposit [without any compensation / interest / costs etc] after Builder unlawfully enjoying the same for 11 years’ ?

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.