District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
Date of Institution: 23.10.2020.
Date of Order: 28.02.2022.
Harikrishan Gupta, age 44 years son of Lt. Shri Madan Lal Gupta resident of House NO.1112, Jawahar Colony, Behind Gurudwara, NIT Faridabad – 121005, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. BPTP Limited, Registered office OT-14, 3rd floor, Next Door Parklands, Sector-76, Faridabad, Haryana – 121004 through Managing Director.
2. M/s. New Age Town Planners Limited (Now known as M/s. BPTP Parklands Pride Limited) Registered office M-11, Middle Circle Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001 through Managing Director.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Sujata Pruthi …………………………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rahul Rathore , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jai Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
ORDER:
There are 10 complaints filed by the consumers against the BPTP bearing No. CC/393/2020, CC/394/2020, CC/395/2020, CC/396/2020, CC/397/2020, CC/398/2020, CC/399/2020, CC/400/2020, CC/401/2020 & CC/402/2020 with the prayer: deliver the possession of the apartment alongwith registered conveyance and Occupancy Certificate to the complainant alongwith compensation for delayed possession with penalty under Clause 5.3. of Flat Buyer’s Agreement, the rate of compensation is fixed @ 5/- per sq. ft. per month,
-
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
of FBA, the rate of compensation is fixed @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month, the law is settled that the allottee suffering a long delay is entitled to a fair compensation. OP is liable to register conveyance in favour of Complainant at the same rate of stamp duty and registration as was applicable at the time of the unit ought to have been delivered as per agreed schedule in FBA and compensate Complainant for increase in such charges if any. In Brochure, the OP presented a glamourous, luxurious project, representing the organized green landscaped areas, Kids Park, jogging and walking track, sitting areas, adequate street lighting and open area lighting but none of these amenities have been developed by OP till today. OP represented that the Parklands Township has its own schools, hospitals, local shopping centers and fully developed roads, street lighting, sewerage system, water connection, drainage, children’s parks and 24*7 security system but none of these amenities are developed. Even the extremely basic amenities like roads are not developed yet. The internal sewerage system is still not connected to the external sewerage system for reasons not known to Complainant. Under “Annexure B Specifications of floor” attached with FBA, the OP was to provide a recreational club and under Clause 1.5 ( e ) of the FBA,Complainant was required to pay Club Membership Charges of Rs.50,000/-. The imposition of Club Membership Charges is illegal and unjustified because OP has not constructed any Club till today. Hence, all recoveries made by the OP against club charges of Rs.50,000/- are liable to be refunded with interest. The Complainant apprehends that OP would (like for other allottees) raise additional illegal demands such as for increased in Super Built Up Area, escalation, electrical connection charges etc. Complainant reserves his right to challenge the same as and when demands are raised. The Complainant has prayed for directions to the OPs to-
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
- deliver possession of the apartment along with registered conveyance and Occupation Certificate to the Complainant along with compensation for delay calculated @18% PA on amounts paid by the Complainant.
- In the event stamp duty and registration charges at the time of registration of conveyance are higher than the rate applicable on the promised date of possession, OP should compensate the excess amounts that Complainant will have to pay for stamp duty and registration
- to revoke and cancel demand under the head “Club Membership Charges” and refund the amount already recovered earlier with interest @18% pa.
- To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to compensate the Complainant for non-provision of promised amenities.
- To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of mental harassment and suffering and unfair trade practices.
- to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Such other relief that this Hon’ble Commission may deem appropriate in the interest of justice.
3. The Opposite Parties put in appearance through AR and filed written statement wherein Opposite Parties refuted claim of the Complainant and submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 “M/s New Age Town Planners Ltd.” (now known as “M/s BPTP Parkland Pride”) was only a confirming party to the said transaction and had not accepted any payment/s from the Complainant and hence, was not liable for any action undertaken by Opposite Party No. 1. The complaint under reply was not maintainable being hopelessly barred by limitation. The Complainant had booked the unit for resale or commercial purpose and is thus an investor and not a consumer in terms of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
On merits, it was pleaded that one Mr. Pawan Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Allottee’) through broker has applied for booking of a residential floor in project namely ‘Park Elite Floors’ situated at Faridabad and, on account of consenting to abide of terms and conditions of Application for Allotment (hereinafter referred to as ‘Booking Form’).The OP No.1 conducted allotments by draw of lots on 11.12.2009 and vide letter dated 31.12.2009 informed the First Allottee that that his name was not shortlisted in the draw of lots held for the purpose of allotment and offered refund if he did not wish to wait for second phase of allotment.In the intervening period, the Complainant after conducting his own due diligence and being satisfied, approached the First Allottee for purchase of provisional registration of a residential floor and, thereafter the First Allottee and the Complainant jointly approached the OP No.1 for transfer of said provisional booking/allotment in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant being extensively conversant with the development work and other related aspects with regard to associated provisional booking of a residential floor, voluntarily and willingly entered into the transaction. The Complainant submitted a fresh Booking Form with the OP No.1 upon thorough reading and understanding of the documented clauses and/or recitals and, further agreed and accepted to be bound by the same to the extent of his contractual obligations. Thatfollowing the nomination in favour of the Complainant, OP No.1 vide letter dated 09.07.2011 informed the Complainant that second phase of allotment for Park Elite Floors would be conducted via draw of lots and also shared alternate option of refund of deposited amount, in case they do not wish to wait/stay for the second phase of allotment. On receipt of said letter dated 09.07.2011, the Complainants rightfully provided their consent to participate in second phase of allotment i.e., opted to continue with the booking when the OP had given option of refund of the deposited amount. OP
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
No.1 on 01.09.2011 conducted next draw of lots, accordingly OP No.1 vide letter dated 06.10.2011 allotted unit no. PA-246-GF/ Area (tentative) 1,025 sq. ft. to the complainants. Thereafter, on 02.04.2012 FBA was executed between the Complainants and the OPs. All the representations made by the OP No.1 including tentative timelines for possession and penalty payable by the OP No.1 in case of delay in offering possession were duly documented in the terms and conditions of the Booking Form which were reiterated in the FBA. The Complainants on account of thorough reading and understanding of the clauses and/or recitals of the FBA agreed and accepted to abide by the same and, affixed their signature as token of acceptance without raising any demur or protest. The Complainants did not at any stage raise any issue/s and/or grievances towards any of the incorporated terms and conditions of FBA.
With respect to Club, it was submitted that presently, 2 interim clubs, one in Block-T and Block-F in the Township Parklands are already operational and functional.
On the aspect of delay, it was submitted that while determining tentative time for delivery of possession of the Unit as per the Agreement, the delay in construction was beyond the control of OP No.1. It is well settled law that “force majeure” indicates events which are beyond the control of human being and prevents other party from performing its contractual obligations. In the facts of the case, OP No.1 is entitled to claim exception under the shelter force majeure events in as much as it was due to the delay in decisions taken by government agencies that OP No.1 was incapacitated in completing construction within time. It was further submitted that the Complainants have referred to incomplete clauses and importing incorrect meaning to the various incorporated clause/s of the duly executed FBA with the sole intent to misrepresent the clause/s qua proposed timelines. As per the terms and conditions of the
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
FBA, the OP No.1 proposed to offer the physical possession of the unit within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the FBA, with a further grace period of 6 months, subject to adherence to the other material terms and conditions of the FBA. The remedy in case of delay in offering possession of the unit was also agreed to between the parties as also extension of time for offering possession of the floors. Clauses 5.1, 5.3, 5.6 and 14 (force majeure) were reproduced
It was also submitted that upon entering the transaction with the OP No.1, the Complainants became 1/3rd owner of the plot which is worth Rs.70 Lacs approx., the Complainants are yet to make payment of remaining total sale consideration for the unit in question. It is further submitted that the civil construction of the unit no. PA-246-GF stands completed for a long time and, as a matter of fact the timelines for possession were subject to force majeure circumstances and for reasons beyond the control of the OP No.1, the tentative timelines stood diluted. In this context, it was stated that in terms of Notification dated 16.03.2010 of Self Certification Scheme issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Haryana, OP No. 1 applied for approval of building plans under the Self Certification Scheme. Although, no objection was received from the Department, however, to ensure that there are no problems later, the OPs also applied for approval of building plans under the regular scheme. In few cases, approval under the regular scheme was received from the Department, but neither approval nor non approval of the Department was received against the Application under Self Certification Scheme, thus, OP No. 1 continued the Internal Development Works and simultaneously raised construction on the plots which was in consonance with the prevailing Building Bye laws considering plans to be deemed approved. However, there was no clarity in the policy of self-certification to the effect whether the same is applicable to individual plot owners only and excludes the developers / colonizers or whether the same is applicable to the developers/ colonizers as well. Subsequently, the Department vide public notice dated 08.01.2014 granted time of 90 days to submit
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
requests for regularization of construction. Accordingly the OPs submitted approval under the said notice. The Department however still had the ambiguity as to whether the policy of self-certification applies to individual plot owners or developers/ colonizers and due to such ambiguities in various policies, construction of the project was delayed time and again. Thereafter, the Department vide its order dated 08.07.2015 finally clarified that self-certification policy shall also apply to cases of approval of building plans submitted by colonizer / developer but did not formally released all the plan submitted by the OPs time to time in various building plan approval schemes. In the meanwhile, OP continued with internal development works. In this manner, reason for delay was put forward by the OP. It was also stated that the OP No.1 has already handed over large no. of units in the project ‘Park Elite Floors’ to its respective allottees and is committed to handover the remaining units at the earliest in a phased manner. It was also submitted that the Complainants never raised any objection and/or protested against the agreed rate of compensation under Clause 5.3 of the FBA. It was further submitted that OP No. 1 is committed to provide operational amenities and facilities in terms of FBA. With respect to Stamp Duty and Registration charges, it was submitted that vide Clause 2.9 read along with Clause 22 & Clause 23, no amount towards stamp duty, registration charges or other incidental charges were agreed between the parties. However, the Complainant agreed to bear the said charges for execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed with respect to unit in dispute as and when demanded by the OP No.1.Opposite Parties denied rest of the allegations levelled in the Complaint and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
- The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
6. In this case, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties –BPTP with the prayer to: a) deliver possession of the apartment along with registered conveyance and Occupation Certificate to the Complainant along with compensation for delay calculated @18% PA on amounts paid by the Complainant b) In the event stamp duty and registration charges at the time of registration of conveyance are higher than the rate applicable on the promised date of possession, OP should compensate the excess amounts that Complainant will have to pay for stamp duty and registration c) to revoke and cancel demand under the head “Club Membership Charges” and refund the amount already recovered earlier with interest @18% pa. d) to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to compensate the Complainant for non-provision of promised amenities e) To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of mental harassment and suffering and unfair trade practices f) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses g). Such other relief that this Hon’ble Commission may deem appropriate in the interest of justice.
To establish his case, the Complainant has led in his evidence Ex. CW1/A-Affidavit of Hari Krishan, Ex. C1 (referred to as Annexure-1)-Copy of Brochure, Ex. C 2 (referred to as Annexure-2)-Copy of FBA, Ex. C 3 (referred to as Annexure-3)-Copy of Statement of Account dated 07.03.2020 and receipts issued by OP, Ex. C 4 (referred to as Annexure-4)- Notification issued by Government of India Ministry of Water Resources dated 26.12.2000.
On the other hand, AR of the Opposite Parties strongly agitated and opposed the case of the Complainant. As per the evidence of the Opposite Parties, EX. RW1/A-Affidavit of Jay Shankar, Authorized Representative of the Opposite Parties, Ex. R/1(Colly)-resolutions, Ex. R 1- Booking Application Form, Ex. R 2- Letter dated 31.12.2009, Ex. R3- Booking Application, Ex. R 4-Copy of letter dated 09.07.2011, Ex. R 5 – Consent letter and Allotment letter dated 06.10.2011, Ex. R 6 - FBA dated
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
02.04.2012,Ex. R 7- Notification dated 16 March,2010, Ex. R 8- Public Notice dated 08.10.2014, Ex. R 9- Order dated 08.07.2015, Ex. R/2(Colly)- snaps of Club in T Block and F Block.
-
-
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
interim club is provided and the facilities would be constructed in future. Instead of providing club over an area of 2 acres land, they have converted one of the vacant units into a temporary club. It was further argued that the OPs plea of force majeure were untenable. In passing reference was made to other issues like Super Built Up Area increase, cost escalation, Electricity connection charges which were demanded from other customers when possession was offered to them.
-
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
09.07.2011, the Complainants after weighing both the options, chose to give their consent to participate in second phase of allotment and thus, the issue of Super Built Up Area being raised is not maintainable and is an afterthought. With respect to Club charges, it was submitted that vide Clause 1.5 (e) of the duly executed FBA, Complainants had agree to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards Club and that presently, 2interim clubs, one in Block-T and Block-F in the Township Parklands are already operational and functional, which are being utilized by the allottees on daily basis.With respect to other charges, it was stated that there were specific clauses in the FBA whereby the Complainants had agreed to pay the same as and when demanded by the OP and now at this juncture complainant cannot be allowed to challenge the said heads of payment.
- regarding the status of construction and by when would the unit be ready for handover, he was not able to come up with any timelines for possession. He further referred to Clause 7.4 of the FBA to state that since the Complainant is not satisfied with the project, the only option available is to cancel allotment and refund the amount received from the Complainant.
- It is pertinent to point out that during the course of arguments, the AR on
behalf of the OPs, made a statement on 30.11.2021 and 15.02.2022 that the OP is willing to refund the amount paid by the Complainant.
-
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
26.12.2000 issued by Government of India has been filed. On perusal of the said notification, it is apparent that the said notification pertains to Gurgaon and hence is not relevant for the Project in Faridabad. Even otherwise, nothing has been argued by the Complainant based on this notification.
13. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
WHETHER COMPLAINANTS FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF ‘CONSUMER’ UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
-
15. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon’ble National Commission in CC-1122/2018 titled Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors vs Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:
“19 The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainant have purchased the same to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of flats’ as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence that the Complainant the ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.”
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
16. From the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, it flows that it is for the Opposite Party to prove that the unit purchased was for commercial
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the complainant.
-
WHETHER THE COMPLAINANTS HAVE CAUSE OF ACTION TO APPROACH THIS COMMISSION?
-
“69. Limitation period.-
- The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainants satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or
the National Commission, as the cases may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint as this such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or District Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
19. Analysis of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this Commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:
“It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts.”
-
Deficiency of service
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
21. Having discussed the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Opposite party, the next issued which arises is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient is providing its services to the complainant or not. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
“23…………The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
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
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
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 compensation as a measure of restitution to a flay 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 has 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 expectation are belied when the developers as in the present case in guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation.
22. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to clause 5.1 of the FBA entered into by both the contesting parties. Clause 5.1 of the FBA, reflects that the Opposite Party was bound to deliver the possession of the said unit within 24 months from the date of execution of FBA with 6 months grace period while admittedly, the unit is still not ready.
23. We deem it appropriate to refer to Aashish Oberai vs Emaar MGF Land Limited reported in I (2017) CPJ 17 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:
“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that consideration the default on the part of the opposite party in performing
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
its contractual obligation, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at the belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”
24. Relying on the above settled law, we hold that the Opposite party is deficient in providing its services to the complainant as the Opposite party had given false assurance to the complainant with respect to the time for delivery of possession of the said Unit and kept the hard earned money of the complainant for about 10 years. Moreover, the Opposite Party failed to handover the possession of the said unit to the complainant within the stipulated time period and therefore, now the complainant is not bound to take the possession of the said unit after the stipulated period.
25. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the concerns of the Complainant that OP had represented to the Complainant that there would be organized green landscaped areas, kids park, jogging and walking track, sitting areas, adequate street lighting and open area lighting and further that the Parklands Township has its own schools, hospitals, local shopping centers and fully developed roads, street lighting, sewerage system, water connection, drainage, children’s parks and 24*7 security system but none of these amenities are developed and even the extremely basic amenities like roads are not developed yet, it is apparent that the delay in the Project is beyond reasonable time and rather is abnormal and unexpected which frustrates the contract as it causes fundamental breach. Further, the OP is still not able to confirm as to by when the unit would be ready and possession thereof handed over to the Complainant.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
26. Now we have to decide whether refund can be awarded in the present case as the complainant had prayed for possession of the unit. On this point, we deem it appropriate to refer to Parsvnath Exotica Resident Association vs Parasvnath Developers Ltd. &Ors. reported in IV (2016) CPJ 328 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-
“Though, in Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2015, the main prayer made by the complainants is to direct delivery of the possession of the flats to the allottees complete in all respects, coupled with execution of the file deed in their favour, when this matter came up for hearing on 27.4.2016, the learned Counsel for the complainant stated in instructions, that since the building plans for construction of towers No. A-D have already lapsed and the revised plans have not been sanctioned as yet, the said allottees are not interested in waiting any longer for delivery of the possession of the flats and want to take refund, along with appropriate compensation for the financial loss suffered as well as the harassment and mental agony caused to them. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in this regards that no prayer for refund has been made in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015. In our opinion, even in the absence of any specific prayer, it is always open to this Commission to grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
27. Relying on the above settled law, it is clear that this commission, even in absence of specific prayer, can grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. On perusal of record before us, we find that the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the said unit even after receiving payment except the last instalment due on possession. In these circumstances, it appears that the Opposite is not in a position to handover the unit in question to the complainant together with the promised amenities. Therefore, as
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
per the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that it is justified to refund the amount already paid by the complainant.
28. In view of the fact that the final order being passed is for refund, the Application filed by OP regarding direction to Complainant qua various heads of payment has also become redundant.
29. Having discussed the liability of the Opposite Party, the only question left to adjudicate is as to how the complainant is to be compensated for the deficient acts of the Opposite Party. It is imperative to refer to the recent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of “Interest” which is being allowed on the refunded amount. In Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors (supra) which has also been referred by and relied upon by the Complainant, the Hon’ble Apex court has allowed an interest @6%p.a. on the amount received by the Opposite Party, payable within one month and in case of default to any within the stipulated period, an interest @9% p.a. was payable on the said amount. We must not lose sight of the fact that equities must be balanced as was held by the Hon’ble High court of Himachal Pradesh while deciding the case of “MohammaedSoyab vs UOI” in Review Petition No. 85 of 2016 dated 25.05.2017 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as follows-
“While adjudicating, the court must keep the following principles in view i.e.
- It is bounded duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Court.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
7. Litigation should not be permitted to turn in to a fruit full industry so that unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”
30. There are lot of settled cases in which the prayer of the consumer was different and the Commission/Court decided in the different way. After hearing both of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the counsel for the opposite parties stated at Bar during the course of arguments due to Covid-19 and strict laws laid down by RERA, it is hard to survive for the builder/developer. In these 10 cases/complaints, there is no occupation certificate received by the opposite parties till yet and they can not assured the date for the issuance of occupation certificate. The A.R of the opposite parties has suffered a separate statement that “We are ready to refund the deposited amount to the complainant as per Flat Buyer’s Agreement Clause 6.4.”
31. We have heard the parties & appraised the material on record carefully & now the Commission is of the opinion that due to any reason whatsoever the whole or part of the project in question is abandoned or the completion of the project is delayed due to any reasons, the responsibility and liability of the opposite parties/seller will be to refund to the complainant/purchaser(s) the total amount as may be received by the seller.
32. Hence, In the interest of justice, these all 10 complaints are disposed off with the direction to opposite parties to refund the entire money paid by the Complainants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of each deposit respectively till the date of payment within 60 days of the receipt of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.394/2020.
33. In case the order is not complied with within the next 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the rate of interest will increase from 6% to 9% p.a. for the period beyond that till the date of realization of the payment. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and also to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainants. Compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 28.02.2022. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
( Sujata Pruthi)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
