NCDRC Holds DLF Home Developers Ltd. Liable For Deficiency In Service, Orders A Refund

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled in favor of the complainants in a case related to a flat booked in the Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh. The judgment, delivered by the Commission, directs the developer to refund an amount exceeding Rs. 1 crore to the complainants.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainants had booked a flat measuring 1926 sq. ft. in Hyde Park Estate, developed by the opposite party. The application was filed on 30.09.2014, accompanied by a payment of Rs. 6 lakhs. The allotment letter was issued on 01.10.2014, and the completion was expected within 30 months from the application date. The Occupation Certificate was obtained on 29.04.2016, and possession was offered on 30.01.2017.

Upon inspection on 17.05.2017, the complainants found several deficiencies in the flat and filed a complaint on 22.05.2017, seeking a refund of the amount paid. The Commission directed them to provide a report of a qualified architect/civil engineer, and a report by Mr. H.G. Ahluwalia was submitted on 16.11.2017.

The report highlighted the deficiencies, and the Commission issued notices to the opposite party. The case experienced delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with hearings resuming on 22.11.2023.

The complainants, in their submissions before the Consumer Commission, raised several crucial points to support their claim for a refund. They argued that despite making a substantial payment and the issuance of an allotment letter, the developer failed to provide possession within the stipulated timeframe. The complainants contended that the flat they were supposed to receive was plagued with numerous deficiencies, rendering it unsuitable for habitation. These alleged deficiencies included structural issues, unfinished work, and deviations from the promised specifications.

The Opposite Party, in response, presented their defense against the allegations made by the complainants. While acknowledging a partial Completion Certificate, they argued that the complainants' insistence on a final Completion Certificate was unnecessary. The developer contended that the possession was offered as per the agreed timeline, and any delays were beyond their control due to unforeseen circumstances, such as regulatory approvals and external dependencies.

Observations by the Court:

The Commission noted that despite a partial Completion Certificate, the final Completion Certificate was not obtained. The flat was offered with deficiencies, making it uninhabitable. The complainants' claim of deficiencies was supported by a report from a Civil Engineer, which was accepted by the court. The Commission observed that the deficiencies were not rebutted by the Opposite Party, and the flat was not offered as promised. The Commission noted that the complainants were not offered the flat as promised by the developer, leading to a clear case of deficiency in service.

The Commission allowed the complaint, directing the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs. 1,15,72,678.25, minus Rs. 7,48,990/- already refunded. The balance amount was ordered to be refunded with 9% interest. The court did not award compensation for mental agony and harassment, considering the timely filing of the complaint and the fact that the complainants, residents of the United Kingdom, did not plan to settle in India. The litigation cost was also taken into account in the final order.

Click Here To Read/Download Order