राज्य उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0, लखनऊ।
सुरक्षित
परिवाद सं0-50/2014
मकसूद अहमद पुत्र स्व0 श्री मोहम्मद सिद्दीकी निवासी 179/7, बारूद खाना, गोलागंज, लखनऊ। ...........परिवादी।
बनाम
मै0 ऐल्डिको हाउसिंग एण्ड इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, कार्याल-द्वितीय तल, ऐल्डिको कारपोरेट चेम्बर-प्रथम, विभूति खण्ड (अपोजिट मण्डी परिषद), गोमती नगर, लखनऊ द्वारा मैनेजिंग डायरेक्टर। ............ विपक्षी।
समक्ष:-
1. मा0 श्री राजेन्द्र सिंह, सदस्य।
2. मा0 श्री सुशील कुमार, सदस्य।
परिवादी की ओर से उपस्थित: श्री वी0एस0 बिसारिया विद्वान अधिवक्ता।
विपक्षी की ओर से उपस्थित : श्री विकास अग्रवाल विद्वान अधिवक्ता।
दिनांक :- 13-04-2023.
मा0 श्री राजेन्द्र सिंह, सदस्य द्वारा उदघोषित
निर्णय
संक्षेप में परिवादी का कथन है कि विपक्षी रीयल ऐस्टेट में कार्य करता है और परिवादी ने ‘’ ऐल्डिको सिटी ‘’, आई0आई0एम0 रोड, लखनऊ में एक विला को लेने के लिए आवेदन किया और उसके द्वारा 1,90,000/- रू0 पंजीकरण शुल्क के रूप में दिनांक 15-07-2009 को दिए गए। विपक्षी ने उसे ‘’ बी सिम्प्लेक्स ‘’ श्रेणी का विला सं0-497 (सी) कैटेगरी-प्रथम का आबंटन किया जिसका क्षेत्रफल 294 वर्गमीटर तथा बिल्ट अप एरिया 95.69 वर्गमीटर था। इसका मूल्य 40,73,135/- रू0 बताया गया। आबंटन धनराशि 1,89,780/- रू0 थी जो दिनांक 14-12-2009 को दे दी गई।
परिवादी ने इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित धनराशि विपक्षी को दीं :-
दिनांक धनराशि
03-06-2010 6,38,510/- रू0
09-07-2010 1,25,000/- रू0
13-07-2010 1,40,000/- रू0
30-10-2010 1,94,979/- रू0
-2-
28-03-2011 6,25,275/- रू0
30-06-2011 5,86,733/- रू0
26-09-2011 3,77,248/- रू0
09-11-2011 2,46,315/- रू0
29-12-2011 2,50,583/- रू0
28-01-2012 1,22,194/- रू0
24-02-2012 1,22,194/- रू0
28-03-2012 1,22,194/- रू0
01-05-2012 1,21,584/- रू0
29-05-2012 1,21,584/- रू0
विपक्षी ने परिवादी के निवेदन पर लेखा विवरण विला सं0-497 का अपने पत्र दिनांक 20-11-2012 द्वारा प्रेषित किया जिसके अनुसार परिवादी ने 1,719/- रू0 अधिक जमा किए हैं और उसके द्वारा सम्पूर्ण सर्विस टैक्स 79,961/- रू0 का भुगतान कर दिया है। इसके अतिरिक्त विलम्ब से भुगतान पर ब्याज 99,319/- रू0 का भी भुगतान किया गया है (कुल ब्याज 99,554/- रू0)। परिवादी द्वारा सम्पूर्ण भुगतान करने के बाद विपक्षी से इस विला का कब्जा देने और विक्रय प्रलेख का निष्पादन करने के लिए कहा गया किन्तु उसने कोई ध्यान नहीं दिया।
परिवादी ने कई बार विपक्षी के कार्यालय की यात्रा की और उससे कई बार विला का कब्जा देने के लिए निवेदन किया लेकिन उसने कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया तब परिवादी ने दिनांक 04-01-2014 को एक विधिक नोटिस विपक्षी को भेजी जो उसको दिनांक 06-01-2014 को प्राप्त हुई।
विपक्षी ने इस नोटिस का कोई जवाब नहीं दिया। विपक्षी ने अवैधनिक मांग करते हुए एक पत्र भेजा जिसको देखकर परिवादी को धक्का लगा। विला का क्षेत्रफल घटा दिया गया जबकि सर्विस टैक्स बढ़ा दिया गया
-3-
जिससे यह सिद्ध हुआ कि परिवादी ने विला की कीमत और सर्विस टैक्स अधिक जमा किया है। विपक्षी ने 2,09,611/- रू0 की मांग की जो उचित नहीं है क्योंकि यह कथित एग्रीमेण्ट का हिस्सा नहीं है।
परिवादी ने एक ओर विला की समस्त धनराशि अदा कर दी और अब वह लोन पर ब्याज अदा कर रहा है तथा विला का कब्जा पाने की प्रतीक्षा कर रहा है। विला के सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी अब किसी धनराशि की मांग नहीं कर सकता क्योंकि उसे विला का पूरा मूल्य दिया जा चुका है।
विपक्षी ने सेवा में कमी की है और उन्हें अन्तिम किश्त के 06 माह के अन्दर विला का आधिपत्य देना था जो नहीं दिया गया, अत: विपक्षी उसी दर पर ब्याज देने का अधिकारी है जिस दर पर वह विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज लेता है। विपक्षी तब तक किसी धनराशि को पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है जब तक कि वह विला का आधिपत्य परिवादी को न सौंप दे।
अत: परिवादी माननीय न्यायालय से निम्नलिखित अनुतोष दिलाए जाने की याचना करता है :-
1. विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह विला नम्बर 497 (सी), विला टाइप ‘ बी ’ सिम्प्लेक्स, कैटेगरी-1, स्थित ऐल्डिको सिटी, आई आई एम रोड, लखनऊ का कब्जा बिना किसी अतिरिक्त धनराशि की मांग के परिवादी को प्रदान करे और इस धनराशि पर वह परिवादी द्वारा जमा की गई धनराशि के दिनांक से 24 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज भी अदा करे।
2. विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह मानसिक व शारीरिक यन्त्रणा के मद में परिवादी को 1,00,000/- रू0 और वाद व्यय के रूप में 25,000/- रू0 अदा करे।
3. इसके अतिरिक्त यदि कोई अन्य अनुतोष जो माननीय न्यायालय उचित समझे, दिलाया जाए।
विपक्षी ने अपने लिखित कथन में कहा है कि वर्तमान परिवाद झूठा,
-4-
बनावटी और दुर्भावना से परिपूर्ण है और यह परिवाद अवैध लाभ के लिए योजित किया गया है। परिवादी को ऐल्डिको सिटी ‘’ ग्रीन ‘’ में एक विला सं0-497 (सी) दिनांक 24-04-2010 को आबंटित किया और वर्तमान परिवाद इसके दो साल पश्चात् प्रस्तुत किया गया है जो कालबाधित है और चलने योग्य नहीं है। विपक्षी द्वारा इस मामले में कोई भी सेवा में कमी या उपेक्षा नहीं दिखाई गई है।
दिनांक 24-04-2010 को परिवादी के निवेदन पर उसे ऐल्डिको सिटी ‘’ ग्रीन ‘’ में एक विला सं0-497 (सी) आबंटित करते हुए आबंटन प्रमाण पत्र तथा एग्रीमेण्ट प्रदान किया गया जिसके अनुसार विला का मूल विक्रय मूल्य 40,63,510/- रू0 अन्य शुल्क सहित था। परिवादी ने प्लान-बी को चुना जो टाइम – लिंक्ड इन्स्टालमेण्ट प्लान था और इसी के अनुसार विपक्षी किश्तों की मांग परिवादी से करता था। विला का निर्माण पूरा होने के पश्चात् विपक्षी ने दिनांक 14-02-2014 को फाइनल डिमाण्ड नोटिस और कब्जा का प्रस्ताव भेजा जिसके अनुसार 2,09,610/- रू0 तथा अन्य खर्च के रूप में 4,60,400/- रू0 परिवादी को अदा करने थे किन्तु परिवादी ने इनका भुगतान नहीं किया और आज तक इस धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया जबकि कई बार मांग पत्र भेजा गया। यह यूनिट पूर्ण रूप से बन चुकी है किन्तु देय धनराशि का भुगतान न करने के कारण कब्जा नहीं दिया जा सका। परिवाद में कहे गए कथन गलत हैं।
इस योजना को बनाने के लिए भूमि राज्य सरकार ने भू-स्वामियों से लेकर प्रदान की और बाद में यह विपक्षी को मिल गई। इस कारण कार्य करने में थोड़ा विलम्ब हुआ। अत: परिवाद कालबाधित है और चलने योग्य नहीं है।
हमने उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्तागण को सुना तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध समस्त अभिकथनों/अभिलेखों/साक्ष्यों का भलीभांति सम्यक रूप से परिशीलन किया।
-5-
इस मामले में आबंटन पत्र और इकरारनामा दिनांक 24-04-2010 का है तथा यूनिट का प्रारम्भिक मूल्य 40,73,135/- रू0 व अन्य व्यय बताया गया। इस मामले में परिवादिनी को अभी तक इस भवन का आधिपत्य नहीं मिला। भवन का आधिपत्य देने के सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा है कि यदि आबंटिन या एग्रीमेण्ट में भवन या भूखण्ड का आधिपत्य देने की कोई तिथि निश्चित नहीं है तब इसे 03 वर्ष माना जाएगा जैसा कि निम्नलिखित न्यायिक दृष्टान्त में कहा गया है :-
Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no 3533-3534 of 2017 M/s Fortune Infrastructure (NOW known as M/s Hicon infrastructure ) & Anr Vs Trevor D’Lima& Ors judgement dated 12.03.2018 has said ,
“Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there 10 was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once
-6-
this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ? ”
वर्तमान मामले में आबंटन पत्र दिनांक 24-04-2010 का है और मा0 सर्वोच्च् न्यायालय के उक्त निर्णय के अनुसार इसका आधिपत्य दिनांक 23-04-2013 तक दे देना था। विपक्षी ने कहा कि उसने इस मामले में भवन निर्माण होने पर दिनांक 14-02-2014 को अन्तिम डिमाण्ड नोटिस परिवादी को भेजा किन्तु परिवादी ने इसका कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया। इस मामले में परिवादी ने ऋण लिया और एक त्रिपक्षीय एग्रीमेण्ट दिनांक 27-07-2011 को परिवादी, ऐल्डिको और ओरियण्टल बैंक आफ कॉमर्श के बीच हुआ।
परिवादी का कथन है कि वह भवन का पूरा मूल्य दे चुका है और उसे अब अतिरिक्त मूल्य देने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। विपक्षी ने अवैधनिक मांग की है और सर्विस टैक्स को बढ़ा दिया है जबकि परिवादी सर्विस टैक्स अधिक जमा कर चुका है।
बहस के दौरान् यह तथ्य सामने आया कि इसमें अभी पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त नहीं कराया गया है। विपक्षी की ओर से कहा गया कि उत्तर प्रदेश नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम 1973 की धारा 15(ए) के अन्तर्गत पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करने की प्रक्रिया दी गई है जिसके अनुसार 300 वर्गमीटर से कम क्षेत्रफल के भूखण्ड पर आवासीय भवन हेतु पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करना आवश्यक नहीं होगा। परिवादी ने इस सम्बन्ध में हमारा ध्यान लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण को भेजे गए पत्र दिनांक 06-02-2017 की ओर आकृष्ट किया। इसमें लिखा गया है कि एल्डिको सिटी, लखनऊ योजना का निरीखण दिनांक 06-02-2017 को किया गया। तत्पश्चात् पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र जारी किया गया किन्तु उसके साथ 05 प्रकार के प्रतिबन्ध भी लगाए गए जैसा कि नीचे स्केण्ड पत्र से स्पष्ट होता है :-
-7-
-8-
यदि पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करने की आवश्यकता नहीं होती तब एल्डिको द्वारा लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण के यहॉं पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र हेतु आवेदन क्यों किया गया ? इसका कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया गया।
कम्प्लीशन और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेटों के सम्बन्ध में निम्नलिखित लेख महत्वपूर्ण हैं :-
When buying a home, it is vital to obtain documents, such as the Occupancy Certificate (OC) and Completion Certificate (CC). These are essential documents that allow you to mortgage or sell your home. Hence, homebuyers are advised to take possession of their flat or property only after these documents have been issued.
According to Vikas Bhasin, CMD, Saya Group, “Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate are some of the most important documents for a home buyer. Civic authorities can evict the occupants in case of non-availability of the necessary approvals. Before investing in a property, people must be doubly assured that all the certificates and approvals are in place.”
Let us dive a little deeper into the details of these documents and their importance before you make a move to buy your dream home.
Owning a home is the culmination of years of savings, research, and paperwork. After patiently waiting for the construction to be complete, you finally register the property and take possession of your flat. But what if your dream home is declared unauthorised, and you are evicted by the authorities? This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. This nightmare could turn into reality without a crucial link in the property sale process - the Occupancy Certificate (OC).
The majority of apartments in different Indian cities have been occupied by owners without any occupancy certificate. This oversight can turn into a costly mistake, jeopardising the
-9-
legal status of your dream home. The importance of the occupancy certificate cannot be overstated as it seals the legal status of your property and protects your ownership rights.
Decoding legal documents
To understand the importance of an occupancy certificate and other legal documents, let’s decode the legal jargon and understand their meaning in simple terms. Here’s a ready reckoner of the most important legal documents related to your property:
Occupancy Certificate
An OC certifies that the construction of the building has complied with the approved plans. It is issued by local municipal authorities or the building proposal department once the building has been completed and is ready to be occupied. Simply put, without an OC, your building has not been awarded a ‘pass certificate’.
Completion Certificate
A Completion Certificate (CC) is issued only after the construction meets other building standards like distance from the road, the height of the building, and rainwater harvesting system. A CC alone cannot legalise occupation; the OC is a must.
Commencement Certificate
If you are buying an under construction property, make sure you check the Commencement Certificate before signing the agreement. Many builders do not wait for a Commencement Certificate. This is illegal and can create serious problems in obtaining an OC at a subsequent stage.
-10-
Why is it unsafe to buy a flat without OC?
In the absence of a valid OC, the local municipal body can initiate serious action against flat owners. In 2014, residents of a well-known building complex in Mumbai’s upscale Worli area were hit with a bolt from the blue after their complex was declared unauthorised. At the time of possession, buyers overlooked the issuance of an OC from the builder. It was only after that they were forced to evacuate their flats that the writing on the wall became clear to them.
This is just one instance, and if buyers are not careful about getting the OC, they may face the following repercussions:
• In the absence of a valid OC, your building can be demolished as it can be classified as an unauthorised structure.
• The OC is crucial while applying for a home loan or loan to purchase a resale flat. If you wish to sell or hypothecate the property after a lapse of time, you will not be able to do so without a valid OC.
• The water connection, sanitary connection or electricity supply can be disconnected in the absence of an OC.
How to obtain an OC
The OC is obtained from local municipal bodies by submitting an OC application form along with the following documents:
• Commencement Certificate
• Completion Certificate
-11-
• Built and Section plan
• NOC for fire and pollution
• Area calculation sheet of floor signed by an authorised architect
• Photographs of the completed building
• Tax assessment with tax paid receipt
• Photographs of rain harvesting and solar panels
• Copy of the sanctioned plan
After submitting the form, authorities inspect the complex and confirm if it has conformed to the approved plan before issuing an OC. Legally and ideally, a builder should submit an application with the municipal commissioner for the OC within 30 days of completion of the property.
How you can apply for an OC
As a flat owner, you can also apply for an OC by approaching the local corporation or municipality, and if all approvals are in place, an OC is issued within 30 days of application. You will have to submit the same documents as the builder to procure an OC.
Know your rights
If the builder refuses to provide an OC, you should consider exercising your legal rights. You can issue a notice against the builder asking him to apply and hand over the copy of the OC within a month. You can also approach consumer forums and file a writ petition demanding the OC.
-12-
Some canny builders simply present the receipt of the OC and dupe gullible customers. But you shouldn’t accept anything less than the actual OC as the receipt may be dated.
Landmark legislations like the Real Estate Regulatory Act (RERA) have been passed to regulate the sector, promote transparency and protect consumer rights. However, consumers must be vigilant and understand their rights and responsibilities towards owning a property. Documents like OC are essential and ensure the security of your investment.
Going forward, real estate experts believe that the OC should be made mandatory for the registration of flats and essential services. Until then, buyers must ensure builders get all the necessary approvals before handing over a property.
A Completion Certificate (CC) is an important legal document that certifies that a building is constructed according to the laid down norms and master plan of the city. This document has all the information related to the project, such as the building materials used, building height, and building plan, among other things like provision for green belt.
In a nutshell, this document certifies that the building adheres to all the prevailing rules and has not violated any norms. In fact, this document is to be shown compulsorily to the authorities to obtain electricity and water connection.
Builders are allowed to obtain a provisional Completion Certificate when there are minor works left in the project.
-13-
Authorities then provide a provisional certificate valid for six months. After the expiry of the six months, the developer is bound to get a final CC.
Who issues a Completion Certificate?
Local authorities issue the Completion Certificate after a thorough inspection of the premises. If the developer violates no rules, authority issues a Completion Certificate.
Why is Completion Certificate important?
Buyers must be aware of the fact that if they are buying or moving into a property that does not have a Completion Certificate, they might be making a risky investment choice. The civic authorities hold the power to slap heavy penalties on the developer, leading to stalling or cancellation of the registered layout of the project. In case the building is already occupied, residents may also have to face eviction in extreme cases.
Difference between Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate
Occupancy Certificate examines and certifies a property for adherence to bye-laws, civic amenities, electricity, sanitation and other clearances. On the other hand, a Completion Certificate is a document that certifies that a property is fit for possession by the buyers.
Clarifying the difference, Deepak Kapoor, Director, Gulshan Homz, says, “Completion Certificate is just a reaffirmation that the building has been constructed as per the building byelaws and the layout plan has been approved by various concerned
-14-
authorities. Occupation Certificate signals that there is no violation of building construction norms, and thus, the structure is safe for occupants.
Generally, these documents are not required at the time of registry, and hence, buyers tend to overlook or ignore these. But for their own benefit and peace of mind, it is warranted that buyers of both ready-to-move-in as well as under-construction properties check these documents before taking possession. This would help avoid any unnecessary dispute or confrontation in the future.”
आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट की प्रति के सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निम्न निर्णय महत्वपूर्ण हैं :-
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that failure on the part of the builder to provide occupancy certificate is a continuing breach under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 and amounts to a continuing wrong.
Factual Background
The appellant is a co-operative housing society. The respondent constructed Wings ‘A’ and ‘B’ and entered into agreements to sell flats with individual purchasers in accordance with the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (MOFA). The members of the appellant booked the flats in 1993 and were granted possession in 1997. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to take steps to obtain the occupation
-15-
certificate from the municipal authorities.
There was an obligation on the respondent to provide the occupancy certificate and pay for the relevant charges till the certificate has been provided, however, the respondent time and again failed to provide the occupancy certificate to the appellant society. For this reason, a complaint was instituted in 1998 by the appellant against the respondent. The NCDRC on 20 August 2014 directed the respondent to obtain the certificate within a period of four months. Further, the NCDRC also imposed a penalty for any the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate beyond these 4 months. Since 2014 till date, the respondent failed to provide the occupancy certificate.
In the absence of the occupation certificate, individual flat owners were not eligible for electricity and water connections. Due to the efforts of the appellant, temporary water and electricity connections were granted by the authorities. However, the members of the appellant had to pay property tax at a rate 25% higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate which was 50% higher than the normal charge.
Analysis
Obligations of Promoter under MOFA
Section 3 of the MOFA imposes certain general obligations on a promoter. These obligations inter alia include making disclosures on the nature of title to the land, encumbrances on the land, fixtures, fittings and amenities to be provided, and to not grant possession of a flat until a completion certificate is given by the local authority. The responsibility to obtain the occupancy certificate from the local authority
-16-
has also been imposed under the agreement to sell between the members of the appellant and the respondent on the latter.
Sections 3 and 6 of the MOFA indicate that the promoter has an obligation to provide the occupancy certificate to the flat owners. Apart from this, the promoter must make payments of outgoings such as ground rent, municipal taxes, water charges and electricity charges till the time the property is transferred to the flat-owners. Where the promoter fails to pay such charges, the promoter is liable even after the transfer of property.
Limitation
In the instant case, the appellant submitted that since the cause of action is founded on a continuing wrong, the complaint is within limitation.
Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides for the period of limitation period for lodging a complaint. A complaint to a consumer forum has to be filed within two years of the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues
A continuing wrong occurs when a party continuously breaches an obligation imposed by law or agreement. The continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong.
-17-
The appellants, therefore, were entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation.
“Rejecting the complaint as being barred by limitation, when the demand for higher taxes is made repeatedly due to the lack of an occupancy certificate, is a narrow view which is not consonance with the welfare objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.”
Consumer
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines a ‘consumer’ as a person that avails of any service for a consideration. A ‘deficiency’ is defined under Section 2(1)(g) as the shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality of service that is required to be maintained by law.
In the present case, the NCDRC had held that the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as they have claimed the recovery of higher charges paid to the municipal authorities from the respondent. Extending this further, the NCDRC observed that the respondent is not the service provider for water or electricity and thus, the complaint is not maintainable.
The respondent was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate. The failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service for which the respondent is liable. Thus, the members of the appellant society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the
-18-
owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.
[Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd, , decided on 11.01.2022]
परिवादी ने कहा है कि उसे सम्पूर्ण धनराशि जमा करने पश्चात् भी सम्बन्धित यूनिट का कब्जा नहीं दिया गया, अत: इस सम्बन्ध में उसे उपरिलिखित अनुतोष दिलाया जाए।
जहॉं तक विलम्ब से कब्जा देने का प्रश्न उठता है वहॉं पर इस सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा एवं मा0 राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता आयोग द्वारा दिए गए निम्नलिखित निर्णयों को देखना समीचीन होगा :-
In R V Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt Ltd., 2019 SCC On Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
“9. We are in agreement with the view of the NCDRC that the rate which has been stipulated by the developer, of compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft. per month does not provide just or reasonable recompense to a flat buyer who has invested money and has not been handed over possession as on the stipulated date of 31 January 2014. To take a simple illustration, a flat buyer with an agreement of a flat measuring a 1000 sq. ft. would receive, under the agreement, not more than Rs. 3000/- per month. This in a city such as Bangalore
-19-
does not provide just or adequate compensation. The jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award just compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot in the circumstances be constrained by the terms of the agreement. The agreement in its view is one sided and does not provide sufficient recompense to the flat purchasers.”
The Court observed that there was a delay of two years and hence the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent was reasonable and justified.
In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, there was a delay of almost two years in obtaining an occupancy certificate after the date stipulated in the ABA. As a consequence, there was a failure to provide possession of the flat to the purchaser within a reasonable period. This Court dwelt on the terms of the ABA under which the builder was entitled to charge interest at 18 per cent per annum for the delay in payment of instalments by the purchaser. On the other hand, the failure to provide possession on the part of the developer was subject to a grace period of twelve months followed by a termination notice of ninety days and a further period of ninety days to the developer to effect a refund. Adverting to these clauses, the court noted:
“6.4. A perusal of the apartment buyer's agreement dated 8-5- 2012 reveals stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For instance, Clause 6.4(ii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to charge interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of instalments from the respondent flat purchaser. Clause 6.4(iii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the agreement, if any instalment remains in arrears for more than 30 days. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5 of the agreement, if the appellant builder fails to deliver possession of the apartment within the stipulated period, the respondent flat purchaser has to wait for a period of
-20-
12 months after the end of the grace period, before serving a termination notice of 90 days on the appellant builder, and even thereafter, the appellant builder gets 90 days to refund only the actual instalment paid by the respondent flat purchaser, after adjusting the taxes paid, interest and penalty on delayed payments. In case of any delay thereafter, the appellant builder is liable to pay interest @9% p.a. only. 6.5. Another instance is Clause 23.4 of the agreement which entitles the appellant builder to serve a termination notice upon the respondent flat purchaser for breach of any contractual obligation. If the respondent flat purchaser fails to rectify the default within 30 days of the termination notice, then the agreement automatically stands cancelled, and the appellant builder has the right to forfeit the entire amount of earnest money towards liquidated damages. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5(v) of the agreement, if the respondent flat purchaser fails to exercise his right of termination within the time limit provided in Clause 11.5, then he shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement thereafter, and shall be bound by the provisions of the agreement.”
Justice Indu Malhotra speaking for the Court noted:
“6.8. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the agreement dated 8-5-2012 are ex facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the builder.” The Court observed that in these circumstances, the flat purchasers could not be compelled to obtain possession which was offered almost two years after the grace period under the agreement had expired. Hence, the NCDRC was held to have correctly awarded interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.
The decision of this Court in Dhanda Case 2019 SCC On Line SC 689 has been relied upon by learned
-21-
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the developer as elucidating the principle that where a flat buyers agreement stipulates a consequence for delayed possession, exceptional and strong reasons must be established before the forum constituted under the Act of 1986 awards compensation in addition to what has been contractually agreed. In Dhanda’s case, the SCDRC issued a direction for handing over physical possession of the residential unit to the complainant and for execution of a sale deed. In addition, compensation was awarded by way of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from twelve months after the stipulated date under the agreement. In an appeal by the developer, the NCDRC directed that the rate of interest for a house building loan for the corresponding period in a scheduled nationalized bank would be appropriate and if a floating rate of interest was prescribed, the higher rate of interest should be taken for the computation. A sum of Rs. 1 lac per annum from the date for handing over possession to the actual date of possession was regarded as appropriate in the facts of the case. In that case under the terms of the buyer’s agreements, possession was to be delivered within twenty-four months of the execution of the agreement i.e. 10 February 2013 – failing which the developer was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per square foot per month for the delay. The developer contended that construction activities were delayed as a result of an injunction granted by this Court over a period of eight months and consequently sought an extension of the period for handing over possession by one year. Alternatively, the developer offered to refund the money deposited with interest at 9 per cent per annum. Construction of 258 independent floors was completed while about 1,500 units were nearing completion. In two sets of Civil Appeals which came up before this Court earlier, agreed terms were arrived at providing for the award of interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till refund. While considering the order of the
-22-
NCDRC, this Court observed:
“16. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer's agreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation at more than the agreed rate.”
Now the interest may be 6% to 10% in favour of the allottees if they have not been given possession of the flat/plot within promised or within a reasonable time. The complainant has deposited the entire agreed cost of ₹ 2,997,610/– up to 1st June 2014. Now it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party to deliver the possession within stipulated time but they failed to do so.
Regarding compensation
“Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, has observed that there is no fixed formula for fixing damages in the following manner.
-23-
8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a 1 Apparent from the study of French Civil Code (FCC) and German Civil Code (BGB). 12 finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus, the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.
9. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being
-24-
directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss 13 inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. … We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer. (emphasis supplied)”
In the case of PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC). These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; , 74 of 2011 Deepak
-25-
Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. ; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers ; byLtd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.
The Hon’ble NCDRC held that:
“Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses. The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants
-26-
that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble State Commission, these appeals preferred before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission .
Hon’ble NCDRC discussed various case laws and after hearing the parties held,
“Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade practice under and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market
-27-
relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10 ( c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for
-28-
a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession.
Against this judgment, parties went to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is:-
In Nalin Bhargava vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-
“Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc.
It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition of costs as compensation.
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised objections with regard to imposition of costs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When we say “cost”, we mean costs alone and nothing else.”
In the case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra[Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No(S). 1795 of 2017] judgement
-29-
delivered on 25.03.2019 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
“Interestingly, where the buyer is in default, the agreement stipulates that interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of default until the date of payment would be charged for a period of two months, failing which the allotment would be cancelled by deducting 5% of the entire value of the property. The agreement was evidently one sided. For a default on the part of the buyer, interest at the rate of 18% was liable to be charged. However, a default on the part of the developer in handing over possession would make him liable to pay interest only at the savings bank rate prescribed by the SBI. There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer that the agreement was one sided.
In the Case of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. Versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd (now Known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and Ors. ( Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 6303 of 2019) ; The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
“ 24 . A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression “service” in Section 2 (1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of
-30-
compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation. To uphold the contention of the developer that the flat buyer is constrained by the terms of the agreed rate irrespective of the nature or extent of delay would result in a miscarriage of justice. Undoubtedly, as this court held in Dhanda, courts ordinarily would hold parties down to a contractual bargain. Equally the court cannot be oblivious to the one-sided nature of ABAs which are drafted by and to protect the interest of the developer. Parliament consciously designed remedies in the CP Act 1986 to protect consumers. Where, as in the present case, there has been a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated debt, we are clearly of the view that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of its power to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is not constrained by the terms of a rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain.”
These builders are just earning money from the consumers to whom they issued allotment letters and got a huge amount. They keep this amount for a long time and earn interest on it. Property dealing is that part of business where they never pay a penny to the consumers on their amounts deposited for a long-term or if they pay, they pay a meagre interest of about 5% or so but they charge 18 to 24% or more if the consumers default in depositing any instalment. It reminds us the story of “The
-31-
Merchant of Venice” The Merchant of Venice is the story of a Jewish moneylender Shylock who demands that an antisemitic Christian offer “a pound of flesh” as collateral against a loan. These acts of builders also remind us the age of Sahukari during ancient India and also during British Raj. Whether these builders have power to frame their own law? They put their terms and conditions in such a way that the sufferer will always be the consumer. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted for the benefits of consumers, so the courts dealing with Consumer Protection Act 1986 should come forward for their rescue. The courts are not governed by the builders but they are governed by the law, Custom and Usages. Now in the background of all the facts and also the facts of the present case, we will also discuss something more.
मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने विशेष अनुमति याचिका (C) सं0-24059/2022 (मा0 राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता आयोग द्वारा रिवीजन पिटीशन सं0-1187/2022 में पारित प्रश्नगत निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक 19-09-2022 से उत्पन्न), मेरठ डेवलपमेण्ट अथारिटी बनाम सुरेश चन्द्र गर्ग में पारित निर्णय दिनांक 05-01-2023 में कहा है :-
“The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Meerut Development Authority assailing the order impugned dated 19.09.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It reveals from the record that the respondent – consumer filed a complaint with a grievance that he applied initially for allotment of a residential plot admeasuring 250 sq. mtrs. and Allotment Letter was
-32-
also issued to him on 02.03.2006 and in terms of the Letter of Allotment, the requisite amount was deposited by 2 him. But the Authority later unilaterally reduced the area of the plot by an order dated 01.08.2013 admeasuring 113.75 sq. mtrs. At this stage, the consumer obviously demanded for refund of the excess amount after the plot size being reduced. The excess amount deposited by the consumer was indeed refunded on 21.11.2014. The complaint of the consumer was that since he was never at fault and deposited the full amount computed in terms of the plot allotted to him of size 250 sq. mtrs., at least he must be paid a reasonable interest over the amount which has been refunded to him. On a consumer complaint filed by him, the District Consumer Commission, after adjudicating the disputes, passed an order dated 06.09.2019 to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire deposit from January 03, 2007 to July 01, 2014 within 30 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount until it is actually paid. The operative portion of the order reads as under :-
-33-
“The present consumer complaint of the complainant Suresh Chandra Garg s/o Late Shri Baburam Garg is partially allowed for the relief sought against the opposite party Meerut Development Authority in the relief clause of the complaint and the Opposite party Meerut Development Authority is ordered to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annual interest on entire deposit amount (Rs. 10,05,967/-) from January 3, 2007 to July 1, 2014 within 30 days from the date of this order. Otherwise, after the expiry of stipulated period of 30 days, the complainant will be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount 3 till full and actual payment. Apart from above, the opposite party shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental and physical harassment due to neglectful behavior and Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost.” The order of the District Commission was the subject matter of appeal before the State Commission. While entertaining the appeal, interim order was passed on 11.10.2019 followed with 28.06.2022. Order dated 28.06.2022
-34-
came to be questioned by the Authority by filing a revision petition before the National Commission and by order dated 19.09.2022, the revision petition came to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the order passed by the Consumer Commission was reasonable and there was no reason of filing appeal/revision against the substantive order passed on the consumer complaint by the District Consumer Commission dated 06.09.2019. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction, to sum up the litigation which is pending for a long time, that let the order of the District Consumer Commission dated 06.09.2019 shall be complied with and the respondent be refunded the entire deposit with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a further period of 60 days from today, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum until actual payment. In sequel of the disposal of the present petition, the appeal and all proceedings arising from the instant complaint pending 4 before State Commission shall stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to
-35-
the State Commission for necessary compliance. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, is/are disposed of. “
वर्तमान मामले में परिवादी के निवेदन पर इस विला के सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी ने एक पत्र दिनांक 20-11-2012 को भेजा जिसके अनुसार परिवादी ने 1,719/- रू0 अधिक जमा किए हैं और उसके द्वारा सम्पूर्ण सर्विस टैक्स 79,961/- रू0 का भुगतान कर दिया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त विलम्ब से भुगतान करने के कारण परिवादी ने कुल 99,554/- रू0 ब्याज का भी अदा किया है। परिवादी ने जब विला का कब्जा मांगा तब उस पर कोई ध्यान नहीं दिया गया। विपक्षी इस मद में अतिरिक्त धनराशि की मांग करने लगा जबकि उसने परिवादी द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर किसी प्रकार का ब्याज अदा नहीं किया है।
यहॉं पर यह स्पष्ट है कि परिवादी को इस भवन का आधिपत्य मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णयों के अनुसार दिनांक 23-04-2013 को मिलना था जो उसे नहीं दिया गया। अत: परिवादी अपनी विला का आधिपत्य और विलम्ब के मद में क्षतिपूर्ति और हर्जाना पाने का अधिकारी है। बिल्डरों द्वारा किसी न किसी बहाने से हमेशा से अतिरिक्त धनराशि की मांग की जातीहै जो उचित नहीं है। अगर आबंटन और एग्रीमेण्ट के समय यह कहा गया कि भवन का कुल मूल्य 40,73,135/- रू0 व अन्य व्यय है तब अन्य व्यय को उसी समय बताया जाना चाहिए। बाद में धीमे-धीमे करके परतें खोलने का कोई लाभ नहीं है। इससे स्पष्ट होता है कि विपक्षी द्वारा उपेक्षा की गई और सेवा में कमी की गई।
तदनुसार मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के उपरोक्त निर्णयों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में परिवादी का परिवाद निम्नवत् आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार करते हुए विपक्षी को
-36-
निर्देशित किया जाता है :-
1. विपक्षी विला सं0-497 (सी) टाइप-बी सिम्प्लेक्स, कैटेगरी-प्रथम का आधिपत्य इस निर्णय के 60 दिन के अन्दर परिवादी को बिना किसी अतिरिक्त धनराशि के मय पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र व अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र सिविल ऐविएशन विभाग, पर्यावरण विभाग, प्रदूषण विभाग एवं अग्निशमन विभाग से प्राप्त कर प्रदान करे और साथ ही साथ इस विला का विक्रय प्रलेख भी निष्पादित करे।
2. विपक्षी, परिवादी को उसके द्वारा जमा की गई धनराशि पर जमा करने के दिनांक से इस निर्णय के 60 दिन के अन्दर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज अदा करे।
3. विपक्षी परिवादी को मानसिक यन्त्रणा और वाद व्यय के रूप में 1,25,000/- रू0 इस निर्णय के 60 दिन के अन्दर अदा करे।
4. विपक्षी, परिवादी को मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णयों के अनुसार हर्जाना के रूप में 1,50,000/- रू0 इस निर्णय के 60 दिन के अन्दर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज सहित अदा करे।
5. विपक्षी परिवादी को मा0 राष्ट्रीय आयोग के निर्णय के परिप्रेक्ष्य में परिवाद में मांगे गए अनुतोष सं0-3 के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 23-04-2013 से 15,000/- रू0 प्रति माह इस निर्णय के 60 दिन के अन्दर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज अदा करे।
यदि उपरोक्त समस्त धनराशि इस निर्णय के 60 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब सम्पूर्ण धनराशि पर इस निर्णय के दिनांक से वास्तविक भुगतान के दिनांक तक 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज विपक्षी द्वारा परिवादी को देना होगा।
यदि विपक्षी इस निर्णय का अनुपालन 60 दिन के अन्दर नहीं करता
-37-
है तब परिवादी को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विपक्षी के व्यय पर उसके विरूद्ध न्यायालय में निष्पादन की कार्यवाही आरम्भ करे।
उभय पक्ष को इस निर्णय की प्रमाणित प्रति नियमानुसार उपलब्ध करायी जाय।
वैयक्तिक सहायक से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह इस निर्णय को आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।
(सुशील कुमार) (राजेन्द्र सिंह)
सदस्य सदस्य
निर्णय आज खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षरित, दिनांकित होकर उद्घोषित किया गया।
(सुशील कुमार) (राजेन्द्र सिंह)
सदस्य सदस्य
प्रमोद कुमार
वैय0सहा0ग्रेड-1,
कोर्ट नं.-2.
