False Assurances For Completing Construction Of Flats : Delhi State Commission Holds VSR Infrastructure Liable

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held VSR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. liable for giving false assurances with respect to possession of flat units to the complainant. The bench presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Judicial Member Pinki observed that failure to hand over possession even after 11 years from date of agreement amounts to 'deficiency in service' and held the developer liable for keeping the hard-earned money of the complaint for such a long time. Brief background: The complainant booked three units in the construction project- 114 Avenue of VSR Infrastructure Private ltd. by paying a sum of Rs. 2,43,92,121/-. Thereafter, agreements in respect of the said units were executed between the complainant and the developer on 24.07.2013. It is stated that the agreements contained vague and arbitrary clauses such as no fixed date of possession was mentioned, etc. On issue being raised by the complainant, she was assured that the possession will be handed over within three years from date of agreement. However, no possession was handed over to the complainant to which she again raised objections. Consequently, a refund of the amount was sought by her. But the developer company kept on extending the date of possession by entering into several supplementary agreements. Several communications were made by the complainant inquiring about the status of construction and consequent possession but 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 ground of maintainability, limitation, etc. It was argued that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as the flat was purchased for earning profits which is a commercial purpose. It was further argued that the Delhi State Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter as the project is situated in Gurugram. On delay in construction of the units, it was submitted that due to several orders passed by the Government and Courts owing to alarming levels of air pollution, the construction was halted. It was stated by the company that the construction is complete and only occupation certificate is required to be obtained. Observations: Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act? The bench held that the complainant is a consumer under the Act as she has paid consideration towards the units and the said units were purchased for earning livelihood by way of self-employment. Moreover, there is no material to show that the complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling of properties. Hence, this issue was decided in favour of the complainant. Whether the Delhi State Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint? The bench observed that the Opposite Party- developer has its registered office in Vasant Vihar, Delhi. As per Section 47 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 a complaint can be instituted where the opposite party actually resides or carried on business. Hence, the bench held that it has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Whether the developer is liable for being deficient in providing its services? The bench observed that though a 3-year timeline was provided by the developer to handover the possession, no clause for the same can be found in the agreement. The bench relied on the decision in Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Shobha Arora & Ors. [NCDRC] wherein it was observed that where no specific time is provided, if possession is delivered beyond 42 or 48 months, then deficiency on the part of developer stall stand proved. The bench observed that the developer company has failed to hand over possession even after 11 years from date of agreement and thus held the company liable for being deficient in its services. It was further observed that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period more so when no specific date is given by the developer and the construction is also incomplete. Thus, the complaint was allowed by the commission with the following reliefs: Refund of entire amount of Rs. 2,43,92,121/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment Litigation costs of Rs. 50,000. Case Title: Nirmal Satwant Singh vs VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: Complaint Case 105/2021 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

False Assurances For Completing Construction Of Flats : Delhi State Commission Holds VSR Infrastructure Liable

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags