Summary
Flat buyers were awarded additional compensation for prolonged delay in possession and failure to provide promised amenities. A one-sided agreement limiting delay compensation to Rs 5 per square foot per month did not foreclose the consumer forum’s power to award reasonable relief. Taking possession or executing conveyances did not extinguish the claims. Eleven specific settlements and three buyers who sold their interests were excluded. The Court awarded 6% simple annual interest for the stipulated delay period, in addition to contractual compensation, while rejecting challenges to tax interest, electricity and parking charges.
Issues
- Whether contractual delay compensation capped the consumer forum’s jurisdiction.
- Whether possession, conveyances, settlements or transfers barred the purchasers’ claims.
- Whether unprovided amenities and the disputed tax, electricity and parking demands constituted deficient service.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Applied the definition of deficiency to unjustified delayed possession and failure to provide represented amenities. (¶¶ 23, 24, 32, 42, 43, 55)
- Clauses 11(a) and 14, Apartment Buyers AgreementHeld that the stipulated compensation did not preclude additional reasonable relief for the prolonged delay and unfair bargain. (¶¶ 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 55)
- Clauses 1.3, 1.10 and 23(b), Apartment Buyers AgreementUpheld the challenged tax-interest and electricity demands in light of the contractual terms and the developer’s explanation. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51)
Held
- The admitted delay of two to four years was neither justified by force majeure nor another just exception. The one-sided compensation clause did not constrain the consumer forum’s power to award just relief; Dhanda did not impose an absolute jurisdictional bar. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Purchasers were not required to surrender compensation claims to obtain possession or perfect title by conveyance, particularly where the developer refused documents under protest. Housing development remained a service. Eleven purchasers with specific settlement deeds were excluded because coercion was not established, as were three appellants who transferred their interests; subsequent buyers could not obtain the benefit of this order. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- No breach concerning construction of the clubhouse was established on the undisputed account of its construction and approvals. Failure to supply other advertised amenities nevertheless amounted to deficiency despite purchasers lacking proprietary rights in those facilities; surrounding urban development did not fulfil the developer’s representation. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- The tax-interest demand was upheld under the agreement and the explanation concerning pending tax litigation; no penalty had been passed on. Additional electricity infrastructure charges and separately disclosed charges for exclusive earmarked parking conformed to the agreement and did not establish deficient service. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- Eligible appellants were awarded six per cent simple annual interest on total amounts paid for their flats, from expiry of thirty-six months after the respective agreements until the offer of possession following the occupation certificate. This was additional to compensation already paid or credited at Rs 5 per square foot per month. Payment was due within one month, failing which the amounts would carry nine per cent annual interest until payment. (¶¶ 55, 56, 57)
Result
Appeals partly allowed and NCDRC dismissal set aside. Additional compensation directed for eligible appellants, excluding eleven specific settlements and three transfers. Challenges to tax-interest, electricity and parking charges rejected; pending applications disposed of.