National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): In a builder-buyer dispute, Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) noting the 9 years delay in delivery of possession of the apartment directed refund to the buyer.

Instant complaint was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Wave Mega City Centre (P) Limited.

Factual Background

Complainants lured by the eye-catching advertisements and assurances given by the representatives of the Developer, applied for the allotment of an apartment. Vide the allotment letter, complainants were allotted an apartment.

An allottee arrangement was also executed between the parties. As per the Agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered within 48 months from the date of the execution of the agreement by July 2016 with a grace period of 6 months.

Complainants kept following up with the Developer regarding the date of possession by visiting their office, but the Developer gave false assurances to the Complainants about the delivery of possession.

Complainants alleged that despite collecting a hefty amount from the complainants, the developer has neither offered the possession of the apartment to the complainants till date nor has refunded the amount collected from them.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Commission stated that it cannot ask the complainant to wait indefinitely for possession of the Flat, as the construction was yet to be completed even after almost 9 years from the date of booking.

Therefore, Coram opined that complainants were entitled to the refund of the amount with reasonable interest.

Commission partly allowed the complaint with a direction to the Developer to refund the entire deposited amount with interest in the form of compensation @ 9% per annum. [Mili Jain v. Wave City Centre Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 3304 of 2017, decided on 29-10-2021]


Advocates before the Commission:

For the Complainants: Mr Jalaj Agarwal, Advocate

For the OP: Ms Shreya Nair, Advocate

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The Division Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) addresses a builder-buyer dispute wherein refund in view of delayed possession along with incomplete internal development work was provided to the buyer.

Instant complaint was filed against Parasvnath Developer Ltd.

Crux of the Complaint

Whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited with interest?

Possession of the plot land booked by the complainant was not handed over within the time agreed to despite the complainant has made the payment to the extent sought from time to time.

Factual Matrix

OPs had promised that the internal development works of the colony will be completed within 24 months from the date of signing of the Agreement with a grace period of 6 months in case of force measure. Once the said work would be completed, OPs had assured to give the possession.

Complainants had opted for a Special Payment Plan floated by the OPs where 10% of the total sale consideration is payable at the time of booking of the Plot. The Complainant had also agreed to pay another 15% of the amount within 45 days from the date of booking and the last instalment would be payable by the Complainant at the time the possession is offered. Agreement to this effect was executed between the parties on 03-09-2013.

The plot possession was to be given by 3-09-2015. Further, it was stated that in case of delay in handing over the possession of the Plot beyond the agreed period of 24 months, the OPs would be under an obligation to pay the complainant’s compensation @Rs 10 per sq. Yard of the Plot area per month for the period of delay.

Further, it was submitted that OPs with malafide intentions not to pay the delay charges, issued possession letter to the complainants after a delay of 11 months of scheduled date of possession without completing the internal services as agreed to.

OPs vide the possession letter illegally demanded the balance consideration price.

Complainant made several attempts to settle the score, but all the attempts and efforts were futile due to which the complaint before this Commission had to be filed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench opined that possession of plot not having been handed over within the agreed time, ends of justice would be met if a direction was issued to the OPs to refund the principal amount with simple interest at the rate of 6%.[Alka Pundir v. Parasvnath Developers Ltd., Complaint No. 941 of 2017, decided on 15-07-2021]


Advocates before the Commission:

Ms Suman Tripathy, Counsel for the complainant

Mr Rakesh Bhardwaj, Counsel for the OPs

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member) decided an issue with regard to handing over of possession of flat and cancellation of sale agreement in a builder — buyer dispute.

Arun Kedia (HUF), Arun Kedia and Sabita Kedia (Husband and Wife), members of HUF filed the present complaint.

What led to the filing of the complaint?

OP 1 made advertisements from time to time, inviting applications from prospective buyers for the purchase of the flats.

In 2013, complainants approached the OP and booked a residential flat for purchase and deposited booking charges, in the office of the OP. In June, 2013, a registered sale agreement was executed between the parties. By that time the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs 73,51,426 in the office of the OP. The balance amount was to be paid in instalments.

Complainants paid the amount of instalments as mentioned in the agreement as and when it was demanded by the OP. According to the complainants, thereafter they neither received any demand letter nor possession of the allotted flat was handed to them till March, 2016. They received a demand letter but as in this letter no date of delivery of possession was mentioned as such, they did not deposit the amount demanded in it, rather wrote letters requesting to handover possession over the flat allotted to them.

It was also stated that the complainants were not allowed to go to the site and verify the progress in construction. OP assured the complainants that they would be given possession within a short time.

When the registered notice was served to the OP, they unilaterally cancelled the agreement, mentioning therein that in spite of the demand letter, they had not deposited the instalment as fixed in the agreement.

Complainants requested and sent registered notices to OP to cancel the agreement and hand over the possession, but since the notices were not complied with, the present complaint was filed.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Whether the complainants were defaulter in payment of instalments as fixed in the agreement in spite of the notice given by the OP, they failed to pay it within 7 days and hence the OP exercised its power under the agreement and revoked the agreement?

OR

OP had failed to complete the construction till March 2016 and in order to cover its default, the agreement was cancelled in a high-handed manner, to harass the complainants and divert their mind from asking possession?

Bench noted that the agreement fixed reciprocal liabilities upon both parties.

Further, it was added that if the opposite party has not abided by the terms of the agreement and committed a serious breach then it cannot blame the complainants that they have not deposited the instalments well within time or within seven days issue of the letter of demand.

Commission held that there was nothing on record to prove that the demand letters were actually issued to the complainants. Therefore, the allegation that the complainants committed default in payment on instalment for which the agreement was cancelled was not proved.

Adding to the above reasoning, Clause-14 of the agreement requires service of 30 days prior notice in writing of its intension to terminate the agreement. No such notice was issued by the opposite party to the complainants. Cancellation of agreement, of which the intimation was given through letter, was illegal. 

Coram held that there was nothing on record to show that till March, 2016, the construction was completed and a completion certificate was obtained from the competent authority.

According to Section 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, if the builder is not able to hand over the possession over the building/flat within the time specified in the agreement then the builder is liable to pay interest to the purchaser of the flat for the period for which the possession has not been handed over.

Due to latches on the party of the OP, the complainants suffered a loss. The agreement for sale had been cancelled illegally and malafide, in a high handed manner and the complainants were forced into litigation.

Commission directed the OP to handover the possession to the Complainants after taking balance sale consideration within 2 months and execute the final deed of transfer. OP shall also pay simple interest @6% p.a.to the complainants on the amount deposited by them from the due date of possession to the offer of possession after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate.  [Arun Kedia (HUF) v. Runwal Homes (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 189, decided on 24-06-2021]


Advocates before the Commission:

For the Complainant: Mr. R.M. Kedia, Advocate

Ms. Sabita Kedia, Complainant in person

For the Opp. Party: Ms. Anita Marathe, Advocate