‘Hard earned money’: Delhi consumer body asks builder to refund Rs 1 crore to buyer

The commission directed the developer concerned to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant, Rs 1 crore, before March 27, 2026. The commission also directed the builder to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs to the home buyer.

‘Cancelled allotment, agony’

• Flat buyers suffer agony and harassment as a result of the developer’s default.
• Apartment buyers make legal assessments for their future course of their lives based on the flat they have purchased and its availability for use and occupation.
• These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer.
• In the present case, the developer concerned is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation.
• The complainant was assured by the developer of handing over the possession of the said apartment within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction, along with a grace period of 180 days, which should be communicated to the complainant.
• In the present case, the developer concenned have failed to communicate any date of commencement of construction to the complainant.
• The developer concerned was liable to handover the possession of the said apartment to the complainant on or before January 2015 as per the terms and conditions of the apartment buyer’s agreement.
• However, they failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the said agreement.
• The termination of the allotment was unjustified and arbitrary.
• A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a “deficiency”.
• There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service.

‘Period of limitation, Covid’

• The commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
• The developer concerned has terminated the allotment of said apartment to the complainant by the notice of termination of March 2018.
• If the period of limitation is computed from March 2018, the limitation for filing the present complaint would have expired in March 2020.
• However, before the expiry of the said limitation period, the COVID-19 pandemic intervened.
• The directions of the Supreme Court issued in January notified the disputes redressal commission stated clearly that any delay in filing matters where the limitation is expiring between March 2020 and February 2022 should be excluded for computing the limitation.
• It is noted that the period of limitation for filing the present complaint expired during the extension of the limitation period as prescribed by the said Supreme Court notice.

• The complainant was required to file the present complaint within the extended period of ninety days commencing from March 1, 2022, and she filed the complaint on March .2022, which falls well within the extended period of ninety days.

‘Apartment buyer, delayed handover’

• The complainant booked an apartment by paying an advance of Rs lakh in July 2011 in the project namely “M3M Merlin”.
• Subsequently, the complainant and developer entered into an apartment buyer’s agreement in July 2011, and a provisional allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant in September 2022.
• The developer assured her that the said project would be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of construction, with a grace period of 180 days.
• It was claimed that the complainant, without fail and diligently, paid the instalments as and when requested by the developers.
• Subsequently, the complainant mentioned that she stopped making payments after noticing no progress and utter delay in the development of the said project and upon expiry of 36 months, along with the grace period of 180 days.
• The developer concerned later issued a notice of allotment but demanded an extra amount of Rs 3.72 lakh, to which the complainant protested and also sought the remaining amount of Rs 80.12 lakh.
• Subsequently, they allegedly issued a notice of termination in March 2018, terminating the allotment of the said apartment.
• Subsequently, the allotment of the said apartment was cancelled.

‘Deficiency of service’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Abdullah Tanveer argued that the complainant made the last payment of Rs 14.16 lakh in August 2014.
• It was also pointed out that the developer made no subsequent requests for payment, and no information regarding the completion of the project was given to the complainant.
• The developer concerned later issued a notice of possession in favour of the complainant after a delay of more than three years, and revised the super area of the apartment in question, and also enhanced the amount payable by the complainant.
• The developer concerned also demanded an interest of Rs 3.72 lakh for the alleged delay in making the payment by the complainant.
• They also demanded the remaining amount of Rs 80.12 lakh for physical possession of the said apartment.
• Later, they cancelled the allotment and forfeited an amount of Rs 78.53 lakh, including Rs 1 crore and informed that the remaining balance of Rs 21.85 lakh would be refunded, which to date has not been refunded to the complainant.
• Service was deficient on the part of the developer concerned.

‘Time- barred complaint’

• On the contrary, the counsel appearing for the developer concerned argued that the complaint cannot be maintained since the present complaint is time-barred as the same was filed beyond the stipulated period of 2 years, calculating from the date of cancellation of the said apartment in question.
• The present complaint deserves to be dismissed.