Failure To Deliver Possession Of Units Within Reasonable Time, Southwest Delhi Commission Holds Metro Max Infrastructure Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi bench of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Harshali Kaur (Member) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held Metro Max Infrastructure Ltd liable for deficiency in services for failure due to its failure to deliver possession of properties to the Complainant despite payment prebooking amount. Brief Facts: The Complainant was enticed by various advertisements from Metro Max Infrastructure Ltd. (“Builder”) and subsequently booked two shops in the "Lotus Valley" township in Jaipur, along with a residential plot amounting to a total of Rs. 4,02,777/-. In January 2014, the Builder unilaterally reduced the area of the plot to 254.97 sq.yd. The Complainant paid Rs. 1,39,400/- on 29.11.2012 and Rs. 3,19,055/- including registration on 11.11.2014, but despite requests, the Builder failed to register the shops and plot, allegedly having no actual land for the project. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Builder. The Builder argued that no consumer-service provider relationship existed under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Complainant purchased the shops for commercial purposes. The Builder contended that the matter was civil and fell under the jurisdiction of a civil court. Additionally, it accused the Complainant of filing the complaint with an illegal motive to gain pecuniary advantage and alleged suppression of material facts. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission held that the failure to deliver possession of the shops and plot, despite receipt of payment within a reasonable time, amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The District Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arifur Rehman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Home Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 16 SCC 5127], where it was held that such non-delivery constituted a clear violation of consumer rights. Accordingly, the District Commission directed the Builder to refund Rs. 4,76,271/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of booking to the Complainant. The District Commission directed the Builder to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as a lump sum compensation of the Complainant for mental agony and litigation charges. Case Title: Kamal Kishor Saini vs M/s. Metro Max Infrastructure Ltd. Case Number: CC/65/2016

Failure To Deliver Possession Of Units Within Reasonable Time, Southwest Delhi Commission Holds Metro Max Infrastructure Liable

Smita Singh

Tags