14-year wait for road: Why NCDRC ordered Godrej to refund Rs 89 lakh with interest to Gurgaon consumer

The contention of the developer that there is another link provided through which other consumers are accessing the project is to divert the issue, said the NCDRC.

Findings

• The road for access to the project which is a 24 meter wide road connecting the same to the Dwarka Expressway has not been provided as promised till date.
• It is down the line 14 years that the complainant has been waiting for the same with no end in sight.
• The argument that it is the state authorities and the development authorities who have to provide such a road for which acquisition had to take place, cannot be a ground or any excuse relating to avoid an integral provision of the project that was promised in the brochure.
• The accessibility is thus eclipsed as per the promise made.
• It is the obligation of the opposite parties (Godrej Premium Builders Private Limited and M/s Magic Solutions Private Limited) to have provided the road.
• The consumer is fully justified in demanding refund if it has not been provided for proper access to the unit and its connectivity to the Dwarka Expressway apart from the alleged defects in the complaint.
• The said provision is vital and one of the major components of the promise that had attracted the consumer to purchase the unit.
• He is, therefore, well within his rights to withdraw from the same where the connectivity is nowhere in sight.
• The mere pendency of the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court with no orders and the fact of non-existence of the promised road, therefore, is a deficiency which is clearly attributable to the opposite parties.
• The contention of the opposite parties that there is another link provided through which other occupants are accessing the project is to divert the issue.
• The consumer has filed photographs which are some sort of katcha road and this compulsion cannot be the removal of the deficiency of providing the road as promised by the opposite parties.
• We are inclined to allow the complaint with the following directions for refund to the consumer keeping in view that this very issue has already been dealt with by this commission in several cases.

The consumer is fully justified in demanding refund, said the NCDRC.

The NCDRC said it was inclined to allow the complaint of he consumer.

Decision

• Allowing the complaint, the NCDRC directed refund of the entire amount paid by the consumer.
  Interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of each payment.
• Compliance within one month of the order.
• The commission further ordered that in case of default, the interest rate would escalate to 12 per cent per annum.

Background

• The complaint was filed by a consumer, one Inderdeep Singh, who had booked a residential unit in the project ‘Godrej Summit’, Sector 104, Gurgaon on September 10, 2012.
• A builder buyer agreement was executed on 25 March 2013, under which possession was to be offered within 49 months, along with a six-month grace period.
• The consumer claimed to have paid Rs 89.24 lakh out of the total sale consideration of Rs 90.76 lakh.
• Despite an offer of possession dated June 29, 2017, the consumer alleged that the project was incomplete and uninhabitable, with several essential amenities missing, most notably the promised 24-metre wide road linking the project to the Dwarka Expressway.

Complainant’s case

• Advocates Sushil Kaushik, Shivam Kain, Karan S Negi appearing for the consumer contended that the offer of possession was illusory and coercive.
• The counsel said that buyers were asked to clear remaining dues and pay advance maintenance charges without being allowed to inspect the site.
• Upon visiting the project, the consumer found that there was no permanent water connection, with supply dependent on tankers, the counsel submitted.
• The counsel said that electricity was drawn from an adjoining society, rendering the occupancy certificate ineffective.
• The clubhouse, internal roads, lifts, fire safety systems and common areas were incomplete, they submitted.
• Most critically, there was no proper approach road connecting the project to the Dwarka Expressway.
• The consumer argued that the brochure had clearly advertised the project as being at a short walk away from Dwarka Expressway, and that the absence of such connectivity fundamentally defeated the purpose of the purchase.

Builder’s defense

• Senior advocate Sudhir Makkar with advocates Kapil Madan, Saurabh Gauba, Aadhya and Naksh Pandey, appearing for the opposite parties denied any deficiency, asserting that the possession was offered within the contractual timeline, after obtaining the occupancy certificate on April 7, 2017.
• The 24-metre wide road within the project area had already been constructed, the counsel submitted.
• They said that the remaining portion of the road, falling outside the licensed area, was the responsibility of the state government, not the developer.
• The counsel also relied on the pendency of a petition filed in 2018 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, filed by the developer itself, seeking directions to the state authorities to acquire land and construct the connecting road.
• It was argued that since the issue was still pending and beyond the builder’s control, no deficiency could be attributed to it.

Effect of Supreme Court proceedings

• Acknowledging that earlier NCDRC rulings in similar cases had been challenged before the Supreme Court, including one Rajiv Singhal matter, the commission clarified that the apex court had not overturned the factual findings.
• In several cases, builders had been directed to deposit the entire decretal amount.
• The settlement in Rajiv Singhal’s case did not erase the underlying deficiency in the project
• Accordingly, the commission proceeded to decide the complaint of the consumer on its own merits.