Delay In Construction And Delivery Of Flat , NCDRC Directs DK Reality To Refund Amount With Interest
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member, partly allowed a consumer complaint against D.K. Realty India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party) for the delay in construction of a housing project named "Livsmart." The main contention was based on the delay in delivering the flat as per the agreed timeline and subsequent failure to respond to the complainant's requests for cancellation and refund. As a result, the Commission held D.K. Reality liable, directing them to refund the entire amount deposited along with 9% interest per annum.
Brief Facts
Amresh Pednekar (Complainant) filed the complaint against D.K. Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party). Pednekar had booked a flat in the "Livsmart" housing project by D.K. Realty, based on the representations made by the company regarding the project's amenities and facilities. The flat was booked in April 2016 with a payment of Rs. 6,46,727/-. An Agreement for Sale was executed in May 2016, with a construction completion timeline set for December 2018, extendable to December 2019.
Adhering to the payment schedules, Pednekar deposited a total amount of Rs. 18,34,461/- but the construction did not commence or conclude as promised. This delay caused financial strain on him due to the EMIs for the loan taken for installment payments. Pednekar made several attempts to communicate with the company, including letters and emails requesting cancellation of the allotment and a refund, but received no response. Consequently, he filed a consumer claim seeking a refund and compensation for unfair trade practices.
Observations of the Commission
The commission reviewed all the arguments and records presented and found that the agreement had a two-year lock-in period from 3rd January 2016, during which cancellation was restricted. But the complainant had requested cancellation and refund in a letter dated 2nd January 2019, followed by several emails, none of which were answered by D.K. Reality (Opposite Party).
Further, the Commission observed that due to an unreasonable delay in construction, the complainant had the right to cancel the agreement and seek a refund. Consequently, the Commission partly allowed the complaint. They directed the opposite party to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant, along with an interest of 9% per annum from the deposit dates until the refund date. This refund was ordered to be completed within two months from the date of this decision. Additionally, the opposite party was given the option to use the refunded amount to settle the complainant's loan first, with the remaining balance to be returned to the complainant.
Case Title: Amresh Pednekar vs. D.K. Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Anshul Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Shandikar, Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party: Nemo