A Delhi Consumer Commission has ordered a real estate developer to refund Rs 19.73 lakh with interest to a former Indian Air Force Air Commodore, who booked two residential plots in Alwar district in Rajasthan in March 2013 for his retirement home. Holding that the developer accepted the money without executing a formal plot buyer’s agreement, the commission directed a refund with interest.
The South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II president, Monika A Srivastava, and member, Kiran Kaushal, were hearing a complaint filed by Air Commodore Routa and his wife, Anapurna Routa, against Canopy Granviz Developers over two residential plots booked in the developer’s Terra City-II project in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The couple had sought refund of the money paid, along with interest and compensation.
“In the present case, the opposite party (Canopy Granviz Developers) has miserably failed to prove their allegation of the complainants not being a consumer…In the absence of a signed agreement between the parties relating to the date of possession or Development Link Plan or the rate of interest chargeable by the opposite party or the complainant, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the opposite party to refund Rs 19,73,780 with interest of 9 per cent,” the commission said on July 6.
The dispute arose from the booking of two adjacent residential plots that the complainant said he intended to use to build a retirement home after retiring in 2021. According to the complaint, Routa booked the plots while serving in the Indian Air Force because he wanted to construct a house in the National Capital Region and settle there peacefully after retiring in 2021. Instead, the investment led to a prolonged consumer dispute that culminated in the commission’s order more than a decade later.
Two plots booked in 2013
According to the complaint, Canopy Granviz Developers advertised Terra City-II, a residential township in Sector 64, Bhiwadi, Alwar Highway, following which Routa and his wife applied for two adjacent plots on March 19, 2013.
One plot, M-95, measuring 203.29 square yards, was allotted at a basic sale price of Rs 29,07860, while the second plot, M-94, measuring 141.68 square yards, carried a basic sale price of Rs 20,26590. The complainants paid Rs 11,63144 towards the first plot and Rs 8,10,636 towards the second, taking their total payment to Rs 19,73780.
They stated that possession was promised within 24 months of allotment and that the developer had assured them a detailed plot buyer’s agreement containing the terms and conditions of the allotment would be executed. However, they alleged that despite repeated requests, no such agreement was ever executed.
Story continues below this ad
Buyer sought refund after visiting project
The complainants stated that because Routa remained posted at different locations during his defence service, he could not frequently visit the project site. According to the complaint, when he visited the site between 2014 and 2018, and again in February 2019, he found that the project did not correspond with the representations made at the time of booking.
He alleged that promised facilities such as a clubhouse, shopping complex and proper approach road were not available and later sought either transfer to another project or refund of his investment. The developer, however, rejected the transfer request through an email dated September 5, 2019, stating that the relevant construction had been completed and asking the complainants to clear outstanding dues and complete registration formalities.
After further correspondence failed to resolve the dispute, the complainants issued a legal notice and eventually approached the consumer commission.Opposing the complaint, the developer argued that the complainants had booked two plots for investment purposes and therefore did not qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Commission rejects investor argument
The commission rejected the developer’s contention that booking two residential plots automatically meant the complainants were investors. It found that the developer had failed to produce any such evidence and, therefore, the complainants continued to fall within the definition of “consumer”. Examining the record, the commission noted that although allotment letters had been issued in 2013, no signed plot buyer’s agreement had ever been executed between the parties.
Story continues below this ad
“Opposite party has written letters to the complainant till May, 2017 wherein the opposite party has asked the complainant to pay as per the Development Link Plan despite there being no agreement between the parties,” the commission said.
It observed that, in the absence of such an agreement, there were no mutually agreed contractual terms governing the date of possession, the development link plan or the rate of interest chargeable by either party. The commission also noted that the developer had continued issuing payment demands under the development link plan despite no signed agreement being in place.
Holding that the ends of justice would be served by refunding the money, the commission directed Canopy Granviz Developers to refund Rs 19,73,780 with 9 per cent annual interest within three months from the date of the order. It further directed that if the payment is not made within that period, the amount will carry 12 per cent annual interest until realisation.
The commission declined to grant any other relief sought by the complainants. This version is fully aligned with the commission’s findings, avoids attributing findings that were only allegations, and accurately reflects the operative directions in the order.
Story continues below this ad
Takeaway
The ruling underscores that a developer cannot rely on possession or payment demands when it has never executed a signed plot buyer’s agreement laying down the parties’ contractual rights and obligations.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi Consumer Commission Helpline: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
