NEW DELHI: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held a real estate company liable for giving false assurances regarding the possession of flat units to the complainant. The commission directed the Delhi-based company to refund Rs 2.4 crore along with Rs five lakh for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 50,000 as litigation costs.
The bench, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (president) and judicial member Pinki, observed that the failure to hand over possession even after 11 years from the date of the agreement amounted to a deficiency in service. They stated that the developer was liable for keeping the complainant’s hard-earned money for such a long time.
The complainant, Nirmal Satwant Singh, a resident of Gurgaon, booked three units in the construction project, 114 Avenue of VSR Infrastructure Private Limited, by paying a sum of Rs 2.4 crore. Following this, agreements regarding the said units were executed between the complainant and the developer on July 24, 2013.
The complainant pointed out that the agreements contained vague and arbitrary clauses, such as no fixed date of possession being mentioned. However, when the issue was raised by the complainant, she was assured that possession would be handed over within three years from the date of the agreement.
When no possession was handed over to the complainant, she sought a refund of the amount, but the company kept extending the date of possession by entering into several supplementary agreements. Despite several communications by the complainant inquiring about the status of construction and consequent possession, no satisfactory response was received. Hence, a complaint was filed by her in the consumer forum, praying for appropriate compensation.
The company raised several objections to the complaint on the grounds of maintainability, limitation, and various other aspects. It argued that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as the flat was purchased for earning profits, which is a commercial purpose.
The company further argued that the commission lacked territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. Regarding the delay in the construction of the units, it claimed that due to several orders passed by govt and courts owing to alarming levels of air pollution, the construction was halted. The company further stated that the construction was complete and only the occupation certificate was required to be obtained.
The commission, rejecting the submissions of the company, stated that the complainant was a consumer as she paid consideration towards the units and the said units were purchased for earning a livelihood by way of self-employment.
