Summery Notes in Consumer Case No
Summery Notes in Consumer Case No
Summery Notes in Consumer Case No
39/2016
Subhash Chandra Yadav vs. M/s Raheja Developers Limited & Ors.
GROUNDS:
That the complainant is a consumer within meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act,1986 and selling of the said flat is a “service” within the
meaning of section 2 (o) of the act.
Delay in handing over the possession, not providing basic amenities as promised
in the flat buyer agreement, not executing the conveyance deed and also not
complying of the License issued to opposite party no1. By opposite party no.3
amounts to deficiency in service with the meaning of section 2 (g) of the CP Act,
1986 as well as amount to unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 2
(r) of the act
Supreme court in “Samruddhi Co-operative housing society Ltd. Vs Mumbai
Mahalaxmi construction Pvt ltd.” has held that failure to obtain OC or abide by
contractual obligation amounts to a deficiency in service. In treaty Construction
vs ruby the court also considered the question of awarding compensation for not
obtaining OC.
The OC from op No.3 was issued on 26.09.2015 and the audit was done after
that, thus clearly proving that the op no1. had managed to procure the OC by
illegal means such as corruption and totally unfair practice on part of OP No.1 to
hand over the flat without basic amenities.
Reply dated 2.12.2015 to the RTI application stated the following
a) That on 20.05.2014, OP No.3 issued a conditional and provisional
certificate which was required to fulfill 18 condition within a period of 3
months before issuing possession to the complainant. None of the
conditions were fulfilled before issuing possession.
b) No information compliance report has been submitted by OP No.1 to OP
No.3
c) OP NO1. In collusion with OP no.3 got license for Raheja Atharva and
Raheja shilas and illegally clubbed it and thereby area and facilities
earmarked to Raheja Atharva was substantially reduced and there was
delayed allotment
Demand of Rs 11,58,650 by OP No.1 was illegal as the flats were handed over
without the fulfilling of 18 conditions. And therefore the possession was no
possession in the eyes of the law
Observation made by the local Commissioner
OP No.1 illegally acquired approval of 300 flats on acquiring just 0.8 acres of
the land in the project. Thus, decreasing the open space of the project which
was the main attraction of the project.
Complainant stepped into the shoes of original allottee on transfer of flat in
his name. OP no.1 put all condition as original agreement dated 12.09.2008
into the agreement dated 09.04.2013 with Complainant in toto and made
them liable to pay outstanding charges. Therefore, op1 has to give possession
with in 36 months as per agreement dated 12.09.2008
OP No.1 cannot take cannot take shelter under clause 4.2 and 4.3 from the
Flat buyer agreement to absolve from its liability to provide facilities as
promised in the brochure to the Complainant. Local Commissioner observed
that the quality of work, construction and quality of material used in
construction is very poor
The Supreme Court in “Experion developers vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor” has
held that interest on the refund shall be payable from the date of deposit.
The Hon’ble NDRC in “Swarn Talwar vs. Unitech ltd.” Has held that refund
with simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum as a comprehensive all-
inclusive compensation is fully justified in this case.
The Hon’ble NDRC in “Shri Satish Kumar vs M/s Unitech Ltd.” Has held that for
interregnum i.e. between 3 years from date of initial allotment and 3 years
from the date of repurchase by them, Compensation will be paid by the
opposite party at the rate of Rs.51 per sq. ft of the super area in terms of
clause 4c of buyers agreement.