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

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Justice V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), while disposing of a complaint, directed the builder to provide compensation in the form of simple interest at 7 percent per annum from the expected date for delivery of possession till the date on which the possession was actually offered to the allottees. 

In the present matter, DLF Universal Limited, was the developer of a residential project. The residential apartments constructed by it were allotted to buyers who executed a Buyers’ Agreement. Developer was to complete construction within 36 months. Complainants submitted that Buyers’ Agreements were unilaterally prepared by the developer and since the earnest money paid by them could be forfeited if they refused to execute the agreement they were forced to sign it. On delay, the developer intimated the allottees to either accept delay of 16 months or to exit taking refund with simple interest at 9 percent per annum. They also disputed the increase in super area, and claimed refund of parking and club charges facility and service tax, and also demanded timely payment rebate and early payment rebate to all the apartment owners.

The counsel for respondent submitted that at time of booking itself, allottees were informed that schedule for delivering possession was tentative. It was submitted that early payment rebate had been given to all the allottees who made early payment, whereas timely payment rebate was adjusted for all allottees who were not in default at the time possession According to the developer the delay happened primarily on account of the abnormal time taken in approval of the building plans and the order issued by the Government of Delhi, stopping construction for a considerable time.

NCDRC held that the developer had not sought payment for increase in the super area beyond 15 percent, the allottees were required to pay for such an increase. Developer could not be allowed to charge separately from the allottees for the club area and the basements used for car parking. No force majeure circumstance had been sought on account of the delay in sanction of the building plans, in the force majeure chart submitted by the developer. 

Regarding the quantum of compensation, reliance was placed on  Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, and ordered the developer to pay compensation in the form of simple interest at 7 percent per annum from the expected date for delivery of possession till the date on which the possession was actually offered to them.

The Commission disposed off the petition,a sking  the developer to pay Rs 50,000 as litigation cost. [Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association v. DLF Universal Ltd., Consumer Case No. 351 of 2015, decided on 03-01-2020]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Competition Commission of India (CCI): The 3-Member Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson), Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), while pronouncing an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, dismissed the case in light of no contravention being found as alleged of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The facts of the case are that the Informant had filed the present information under Section 19(1) (a) against OP-1, i.e. Vatika Ltd. and OP-2, i.e. Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) for contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of Competition Act, 2002. The informant had purchased a plot in a township being developed by OP-1 in Gurugram, Haryana. Informant had opted for a “construction linked payment plan” in which he had to pay the total amount within a span of 3 years. Once the initial payment was duly paid a plot was allotted to the informant and further, the agent asked the Informant to sign the buyer’s agreement which was jointly signed by the Informant and his son.

As per the payment plan, the Informant had deposited the second installment and was asked to make the third installment within 15 days when initially at the time of making application for the plot it was decided that the third installment would be payable in 8 to 9 months from the date of booking. For the payment of the third installment, demand letter from OP-1 started to flow and on being asked about the same by informant it was reasoned that because of the construction work had been completed upto the 5th installment plan.

The Informant further stated that, on mailing several queries due to being aggrieved by the above stated circumstances and seeking clarifications on the same, but no reply being received in this regard, the Informant had to send out a legal notice to OP-1 reiterating the details of the one-sided communication to which the response was that the Informant had defaulted in payment of installment and as a consequence the amount already paid by the informant had been forfeited, therefore the Informant was not liable to any refund.

Allegations by the Informant:

  • OP-1 abused its dominant position; by refusing to visit the site, unfair terms of the Buyer’s Agreement, unreasonable demand of instalment payments and not responding to queries which ultimately places the OP-1 in the position of abuse of dominance in the relevant market of residential plots by violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002
  • Cartelisation: OP-2 and its members including OP-1 have indulged in common practices by incorporating standard clauses in their agreements.

The Commission on perusal of the information and submissions of the parties has stated that it disagrees with the Informant’s submission that the relevant geographic market should be delineated as “Northern Peripheral Road Corridor.” There are various residential projects in Gurugram other than the projects in Northern Peripheral Road Corridor which could have been considered by consumers desirous of purchasing a residential plot. It is noted that the Informant has assessed the dominance of OP-1 as per the relevant geographic market defined by him. “The Commission notes that OP-1 faces sufficient competitive constraints from various other competitors and would not be able to operate independently of the competitive forces prevailing.”

Therefore, in view of the above-stated allegations and Commission’s view in that respect, no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 arise against the OP. [Ranjit Singh Gujral v. Vatika Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine CCI 84, dated 16-10-2018]