1. Heard Ms. Neha Garg, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate, for the respondent. 2. Aforementioned appeal has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, dated 15.09.2017, dismissing Consumer Complaint No.1419 of 2017. 3. Anita (the appellant) filed Consumer Complaint No.1419 of 2017, for directing M/s. Omaxe Ltd. (the respondent) (i) to refund Rs.2853208/- along with pendent lite interest @18% per annum, (ii) to execute sale deed of the flat in question without any further delay, (iii) to refund open car parking charges of Rs.60000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (iv) to refund club charges of Rs.40000/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (v) to refund power back-up charges of Rs.75000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund (vi) to refund Interest Free Maintenance Charges of Rs.96300/-, (vii) to refund Electrical and Fire Fighting Equipment charges of Rs.38520/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (viii) to refund Meter charges of Rs.40100/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (ix) to refund Utility charges of Rs.23112/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (x) to refund External and Internal Development charges of Rs.288900/-, with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund and (xi) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The complainant stated that the opposite party (the builder) was a company engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builder launched a project of group housing in the name of “Omaxe North Avenue-II”, Bahadurgarh in the year 2007 and their agents represented that possession over the flat complete in all respect would be given within a period of two years. Smt. Krishna Chawla and Sh. Wazir Chand (the predecessors-in-interest of the complainant) booked a 3BR flat on 01.11.2007 and deposited Rs.271250/-. As per demand, they deposited Rs.271600/- on 24.04.2008, Rs.300000/- on 30.09.2011, Rs.485387/- on 03.02.2012, Rs.179289/- on 14.06.2012, Rs.319456/- on 19.11.2012, Rs.187166/- on 22.02.2013, Rs.5734/- on 23.03.2013, Rs.207606/- on 17.08.2013, Rs.274790.93/- on 19.09.2016 and Rs.209.07/- on 19.09.2016. Sh. Wazir Chand died on 10.12.2010 and in his place, his son Sh. Suraj Chawla was substituted in the records of the builder. The builder allotted Flat No.79, 2nd Floor, in the aforesaid project. Smt. Krishna Chawla and Sh. Suraj Chawla transferred the aforesaid flat to the complainant taking Rs.4880000/-, with prior permission of the builder, vide agreement dated 23.09.2016. The builder allotted the aforesaid flat in the name of the complainant on 29.09.2016. The builder gave fit-out possession of the flat to the complainant on 31.01.2017. After taking possession, the complainant noticed that plaster of the walls, roof, floor and doors were of very poor quality. The builder has charged money in the head of service tax, club membership, open car parking, External Internal Development, Interest Free Maintenance, Haryana VAT, Power back-up equipment, meter, electrical and fire fight equipment, utility etc. but no such facilities have been provided. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 22.08.2017. 5. The complaint was listed for admission on 12.09.2017. State Commission, by order dated 15.09.2017, relying upon some judgments of this Commission, held that the complainant had taken possession, as such, she did not remain a consumer and the complaint was not maintainable. On these findings, the complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal has been filed. 6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rehman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Private Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512 (para-41) held that the developer has undertaken to provide services in the nature of developing residential flats with certain amenities and remains amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Foras. Consequently, we are unable to subscribe the view of NCDRC that the flat purchasers, who obtained possession or executed deed of conveyance, have lost their right to make claim for compensation for delayed handing over of the flat. In M/s. Laureate Buildwells Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Charanjeet Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 479, Supreme Court held that a purchaser steps into the shoes and derives all the rights and obligations of the original allottee. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court, contrary judgments of this Commission shall be treated as overruled. As such, we hold that complaint was maintainable and has been wrongly dismissed at the admission stage. ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed. The order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, dated 15.09.2017, dismissing Consumer Complaint No.1419 of 2017, is set aside. State Commission is directed to admit the complaint and decide on merit, expeditiously, in accordance with law. |
