Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1703/2017

MR. RAJEEV RANJAN & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUMAN TRIPATHY

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 Date of Arguments :  20.11.17

Date of Decision :       27.11.17

Complaint No.1703/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

1. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan
2. Mrs. Ruby Ranjan

Both resident of :

D-347, Delta-1 Greater Noida

UP-201308.                                                                             ………...Complainants                                                                                                                     

                                                            Versus

 

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastrctures Ltd.

Having its Registered Office at:

115-Ansal Bhawan

16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001.                                                                ………Opposite Party/Respondent

 

CORAM

             

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                Yes

SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

                                                          JUDGEMENT

                The case set up by complainant is that they booked one flat and paid the booking amount in Project “ Megapolis” (Fairway Apartments) at Greater Noida in 2010.  In 2014 OP approached complainant for flat in another project “Sushant Serene Residency” at GH-1, Sector ETA-II, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh which was launched in the year 2012. The OP assured that possession of said flat would be handed over in December 2014. Complainants took loan from bank for payment of the booking amount and other demands in 2010 itself and are paying interest for the said loan.

2.            OP allotted another flat No. T9E (T12E) 903 admeasuring No. 1575 sq. ft. with total consideration price of Rs.33,17,125/-. After adjusting the amount paid against initial booking, complainants paid balance amount to the OP. OP has still not handed over possession of the flat.

3.            Flat buyer agreement dated 16.12.14 was executed.  Complainants have already paid 62% of the total consideration. They have paid Rs. 19,97,944/- till date.  Flat buyer agreement does not contain any provision for compensation for delay in handing over possession of the flat which shows that the same is arbitrary and unilateral agreement.  If buyers make delay in making payment they have to pay interest @ 18% compounded half yearly as per clause 4.5. Taking advantage of the said clause OP has revised the date of possession from 2016 to 2022.  OP has registered the project under the Real Estate Regulatory Act, 2016 and revised possession date to 31.03.22 as is evident from the details of project mentioned in the “RERA “ Website.  Complainants protested the same vide e-mail dated 24.05.17.  Hence this complaint for directing OP to revise payment schedule in line with new possession date , declare reminder dated 25.09.17 as null and void, directing OP to pay interest @ 18% per annum,  award compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- for mental agony, physical pain and financial loss, award Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.            We have heard the counsel for complainant at the stage of admission. We put it to the counsel for the complainant whether consumer fora can go beyond the builder buyer agreement.  He could not satisfy us.

5.            Law regarding agreement is that parties are bound by the terms of agreement and consumer fora cannot travel beyond the terms of the agreement. This is so as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharati Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier  II (1996) CPJ 25.

6.            In the case in hand the agreement does not provide any expected date of delivery of possession so the plea of complainant in para 3( c ) of the complaint that OP assured that possession would be handed over to the complainant in December 2014 is merely expectation of the complainants. 

7.            There is no provision in the agreement to direct the OP to revise payment schedule in line with the new possession date.

8.            Similarly there is no provision in agreement requiring OP to pay interest at any rate to the complainant, on the amount deposited by them, for delay in handing over possession.

9.            Counsel for complainants submitted that UP Apartment Act makes it mandatory for builders to specify date of expected delivery of possession in the agreement.  It may be so but this Commission is not a regular civil court which can compel the parties to adhere to various provisions of law in different enactments.  This Commission is a creature of Consumer Protection Act and has to function within the framework of Consumer Protection Act.

                The complaint is dismissed in limini.                

                Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                       (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)