JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          This complaint u/s 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on behalf of as many as ten allottees of residential flats in a project initially named as “Supertech Renesa” which was later on renamed as “Supertech Romano” which the OP was to develop in Sector-118 of Noida.  The grievance of the persons on whose behalf this complaint is instituted is that despite promising to deliver possession of the flats to them by July 2015, the OP failed to honour the said contractual obligation and rather, tried to unilaterally amend the terms and conditions governing the said allotments.  The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by the aforesaid allottees to the OP alongwith interest @ 24% per annum besides Rs.2,00,000/- as the cost of litigation. 

2.      The complaint has been resisted by the OP primarily on the grounds that the complainant is not a voluntary consumer association within the meaning of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and the persons on whose behalf the complaint is instituted having defaulted in payment of the installments payable by them, the allotments were later cancelled by the OP. 

3.      As noted earlier, the complainant is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, the said registration being valid from 30.09.2015.  This complaint was registered on 05.10.2015, meaning thereby that the complainant was already registered at the time the complaint was instituted. 

4.      The aims and objectives of the complainant society inter-alia read as under:

               (i) To be and to act as the Association of Allottees of Renesa erstwhile project of M/s Supertech Ltd.

               (ii) To ascertain the problems and requirements in respect of those Supertech Customers who had booked flats in Renesa Project of the company.

               (iii) To establish personal contacts between Renesa Allottees with a view to redress their grievances against the builder and to educate them about the various remedies against the builder.

               (iv) To represent before Supertech, Government and Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies for and on behalf of the members of Association.

               (v) To help raise the level of consumer awareness among the flat buyers so as to help them from being duped by the builders.

          It is evident from the aforesaid aims and objectives that the complainant association was established primarily for redressal of the consumer grievances of the allottees of erstwhile Renesa project of the OP.  The complainant confirms to the requirements of a voluntary consumer association, as laid down by a three-Members Bench in Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flats Affected Buyers Association Vs. M/s Prime Sristi Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CC No.560 of 2014 with connected association matters.  The learned counsel for the OP has pointed out that the area of operation of the complainant is stated to be NCT of Delhi.  The aforesaid provision in the Memorandum of Association, in my view, does not take away the character of the complainant as the voluntary consumer association within the meaning of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The learned counsel has also pointed out that the other aims and objectives of the complainant include sale, lease, exchange etc. of the properties and construction, purchase etc. of land and building.  I fail to appreciate how the aforesaid additional objectives would result in stripping the complainant of its character as a voluntary consumer association when the other aims and objectives clearly stipulate redressal of consumer related grievances, of the allottees of the erstwhile Renesa project.  The complainant therefore, meets all the necessary requirements of a voluntary consumer association in terms of order of this Commission in Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flats Affected Buyers Association (supra).

5.      It is an admitted position that the allotment to the persons on whose behalf this complaint is instituted was made in the year 2012 and allotment letters were duly issued to them.  One sample allotment letter is available on page no. 32 of the paper-book and as per the aforesaid letter of allotment, the possession was to be delivered by July 2015 though due to unforeseen circumstances, the aforesaid period got extended to another six months.  Vide e-mail dated 24.12.2013, the OP informed that they had christened the project from “Renesa” to “Romano”.  The aforesaid change of name however, would be immaterial since the terms and conditions of allotment were not sought to be changed at that time.  However, subsequently, the OP issued allotment letter dated 28.02.2014 to the aforesaid allottees.  The subsequent allotment letters contained terms and conditions different from the terms and conditions which formed part of the initial allotment.  So much so that even the stipulated date for delivery of possession was sought to be changed from July 2015 to December 2016.  The aforesaid allottees therefore, were not bound to accept the revised allotment letter issued by the OP without their consent to the modification of the terms and conditions including the date stipulated for the delivery of the possession.  The aforesaid allottees therefore, became entitled to refund of the amount paid by them to the OP alongwith appropriate compensation. 

6.      As far as the alleged default on the part of the aforesaid allottees in making payment is concerned, there is no evidence of any default in making payment in terms of the allotment letter issued in the year 2012.  As far as the allotment letter issued on 28.02.2014 is concerned, the same having never been accepted by the allottees, they were not bound to make any payment after they had received the said second allotment letter containing a different set of terms and conditions including the date stipulated for the delivery of possession.  In the demand letter dated 13.02.2014, the OP asked the allottees to make payment by 15.03.2014.  However, since the OP had unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of allotment even before the last date stipulated for making payment as per demand letter dated 13.02.2014, the cancellation of the allotment on account of non-payment of the demand as raised in the demand letter dated 13.02.2014 cannot be justified. 

7.      Even otherwise, the mail exchanged between the parties shows that though the OP had expressed willingness to refund the amount paid by the aforesaid allottees though the e-mail was silent as to whether any interest would be paid or not.  The allottees on the other hand sent letters demanding refund initially alongwith interest @ 8% per annum and thereafter alongwith interest  6% per annum.   Considering the fact that the allottees had themselves restricted their demands to payment of interest @ 6% per annum, the OP in my opinion, should not be directed to pay a higher rate of interest though as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, they shall be entitled to compensation for the mental agony and harassment undergone by them on account of the OP having not paid refund even at the reduced rate of 6% per annum. 

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:

        (i) The OP shall pay the entire amount received by it from ten allottees detailed on page no.44 to 46 of the paper-book to the concerned allottees alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount alongwith interest in terms of this order is refunded. 

        (ii) The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as the compensation for the mental agony and harassment to each of the aforesaid allottees. 

        (iii) The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation.

        (iv) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.