Purchasing Multiple Houses Does Not Automatically Imply Commercial Purpose: Delhi State Commission Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, held that the ownership of multiple houses does not inherently demonstrate commercial intent. It was further held that the responsibility to prove that a purchase was made for commercial purposes lies with the builder, necessitating the presentation of documentary evidence. Brief Facts of the Case...
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, held that the ownership of multiple houses does not inherently demonstrate commercial intent. It was further held that the responsibility to prove that a purchase was made for commercial purposes lies with the builder, necessitating the presentation of documentary evidence.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainants booked a flat in a project by TDI Infrastructure/builder at TDI City and paid Rs. 26,47,852 by 2015, with 10% payable on possession. They entered into an agreement with the builder for a 3-bedroom apartment, agreeing on a total price of Rs. 28,36,926. The possession was due by September 2013, but despite multiple requests, the builder neither handed over possession nor paid the agreed penalty for delay. The complainants, having suffered mental torture and financial distress, especially one being a retired government servant, filed a complaint in the district forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the builder to refund the amount of Rs.26,47,852 along with interest @24%. It also directed the builder to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000 for mental torture, pain, and harassment for deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the builder appealed before the State Commission.
Contentions of the Builder
The builder contended in the appeal that the District Commission had failed to consider that the respondents were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, as the apartment was purchased for commercial purposes. It was further argued that the complainants did not make timely payments as per the schedule, and the District Commission awarded interest at an exorbitant rate without justification. Based on these arguments, the builder requested that the order of the District Commission be overturned.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission observed that to determine whether the complainants fell under the category of consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reference was made to legal precedents. Specifically, the case of Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited highlighted that owning multiple houses does not necessarily indicate commercial intent. Additionally, in Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., it was established that the burden of proving a purchase for commercial purposes rests with the builder, requiring documentary evidence. Regarding the builder's contention that the complainants failed to make timely payments, thereby justifying delayed possession and high interest rates, the commission noted that the builder had penalized the delayed payments despite the project's own delays. This argument was dismissed as lacking merit.
The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Commission's order.
Case Title: M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Mr. Ram Adhar & Anr.
Case Number: F.A. No. 326/2023