New Delhi: this delhi state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Recently, a real estate company was held liable for providing false assurances to complainants regarding ownership of condominium units.
The commission directed the Delhi-based company to refund Rs 243 crore, along with Rs 5 lakh as mental agony and harassment charges, and Rs 50,000 as legal costs.
The bench is composed of judges Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal (President) and judicial member pinkpointed out that failure to transfer ownership even after 11 years from the date of the agreement amounted to deficient service. They said it was the developer’s responsibility to withhold the complainant’s hard-earned money for a long period of time.
The judge noted that although the developer had given a three-year period to hand over ownership, the same clause was not found in the agreement.
Complainant Nirmal Satwant Singh, resident Gurugrambooked three units in the construction project, 114 Avenue VSR Infrastructure Pte Ltdpaying Rs 2.43 lakh. Thereafter, the complainant and the developer signed an agreement regarding the said unit on July 24, 2013.
The complainants stated that the agreements contained vague and arbitrary terms, such as no reference to a fixed date of possession. However, when the complainant raised this issue, she was assured that ownership would be transferred within three years from the date of the agreement. The complainant did not hand over any property, which she again disputed.
Later, she requested a refund of the money, but the company continued to extend the possession period by signing multiple supplementary agreements.
Despite numerous letters from the complainant inquiring about the status of the construction and subsequent possession, no satisfactory reply was received. So she complained to a consumer forum, hoping to get appropriate compensation.
The company raised multiple objections to the complaint citing maintainability, limitations and various other aspects. The company argued that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Rights Protection Act. consumer protection law Because the apartment was purchased to make a profit, which is a business purpose.
The company further argued that since the project is located in Gurgaon, the Delhi State Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.
Regarding the delays in the construction of these units, the company said the construction was halted due to multiple orders passed by the government and courts due to the severity of air pollution.
The company said construction is complete and only the entry certificate is required.
The judge dismissed the company’s submissions and ruled that the complainant was a consumer because she had given consideration to the units, which she purchased with a view to earning a living through self-employment.
The commission also rejected the company’s jurisdictional claim, saying the lawsuit could be brought where the other party actually resides or conducts business.
