Delay In Possession A Continuous Cause of Action: Delhi State Commission Holds Raheja Developers Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that a continuous delay in handing over the possession is a continuous cause of action and amounts to deficiency in service. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked a plot in Raheja's Aranya City, Gurgaon, and paid Rs. 8,68,680. The builder promised completion in 36 months. The...
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that a continuous delay in handing over the possession is a continuous cause of action and amounts to deficiency in service.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a plot in Raheja's Aranya City, Gurgaon, and paid Rs. 8,68,680. The builder promised completion in 36 months. The complainant chose a construction-linked payment plan but missed payments, leading to cancellation and forfeiture of earnest money. After requesting restoration, the complainant paid Rs. 27,43,288 for dues and interest but the builder did not execute the Conveyance Deed. Therefore, the complainant approached the State Commission alleging that the builder had deficiencies.The complainant seeks refund of the principal amount of Rs. 1,77,81,106 along with Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Contentions of the Builder
The builder argued that the complainant was not a 'Consumer' as the purchase was made for commercial reasons. It was also argued that the complaint was time- barred, making it unsustainable in the court of law. Furthermore, the builder justified the delay in possession due to factors being out of their control.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission observed that the complainant paid Rs. . 1,10,21,649 to the builder, as evident from payment receipts and ledger statements. The first issue addressed was whether the complainant qualifies as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Citing Narinder Kumar Bairwal & Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the commission noted that the burden of proof lies on the builder to show the purchase was for commercial purposes. Furthermore, in Mehnga Singh Khera & Ors. vs. Unitech Ltd., it was held that delays in possession constitute a continuous cause of action. Thus, the complaint was deemed maintainable. The petitioner paid Rs. 27,43,288 in dues after seeking restoration of services The Commission held that when the builder fails to deliver possession within the stipulated period, the same shall be considered deficiency in service, which has been decided by the case Aashish Oberai vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited. As per the said observations, the State Commission had admitted the complaint and directed the complainant to refund Rs. 1,10,21,649 along with 6% interest together with Rs. 5,00,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 50,000 towards the cost of litigation.
Case Title: Ms. Priya Sachdev Vs. M/S Raheja builder. s Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 77/2021