NCDRC Directs DLF Universals To Refund The Entire Amount For Delay In Handing Over Possession
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the presiding member and Dr. Inder Jeet Singh as member directed DLF Universal to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 37,73,154/- to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @6% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of...
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the presiding member and Dr. Inder Jeet Singh as member directed DLF Universal to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 37,73,154/- to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @6% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
The complainant submitted that DLF Universal (Opposite Party) launched a residential project in new Chandigarh in the name of “Hyde Park Terraces”. The complainant booked a flat in the project, the total cost of which was Rs.73,13,635/-. Out of this amount, the complainant has paid a total of 37,73,154/-. The opposite party was supposed to hand over the possession 30 months from the date of application. The complainant also alleged that the opposite party inserted several illegal clauses in the floor buyers agreement.
The complainant submitted that the opposite party failed to deliver the possession as promised and a new date of delivery was informed to him. However, the status of the said unit has not been disclosed to the complainant. Eventually the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by him. Further, a community hall, covered stilt parking, Yoga Centre, proper swimming pool, library, card/carom room, pool/billiards room and a clubhouse with modern facilities and several such facilities/amenities as was provided in the brochure/website were not provided by the opposite party. Additionally, several other basic amenities were also not provided. The complainant alleged that on asking for refund the opposite party sent a letter offering a possession as well as asked for a due amount and holding charges.
The complainant submitted that The OP was late in handing over the possession ,thus in that eventuality complainant is not liable to pay any other taxes and charges which occurred due to delay of the OP in handing over the possession.
The opposite party submitted that the complainant is virtually inviting the Commission to assume the powers conferred on the Fora under the Competition Act and/or under Civil Court. The complainant is not a Consumer and has booked the Floor for investment purpose. It was also contended by the Opposite Party that the jurisdiction to the national commission needs to be adjudicated first. They further submitted that since the complainant is asking for a complete refund the opposite party is entitled to deduct the brokerage amount paid to the broker. The opposite party alleged that the complainant is not a consumer because he brought the unit for investment and also that the complaint is barred by limitation.
The bench observed that the contention of Opposite Party that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction is not valid. Under Section 21 of the Act, Commission has the jurisdiction where value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1 Cr. The objection that the Complaint is barred by limitation is also not accepted. The Opposite Party has failed to deliver the possession of the unit to the complainant till date and therefore, the cause of action is continuing. The contention that complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the unit for investment purpose is also rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the Opposite Party in this regard. The contention of the Opposite Party that the parties are bound by the agreement is also not acceptable.
The bench referenced to the decision of supreme court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raglivan II and observed that the plea of Opposite Party that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement is also not valid as remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies available under special statue. Hence, this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Regarding delay in payments on the part of the complainant, it was stated by the complainant that Opposite Party has charged delayed interest from the complainant. The bench noted that in this case there is a delay in handing over the possession and hence the complainant has a legitimate right top claim refund and other compensation.
Hench the bench directed DLF Universal to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 37,73,154/- to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @6% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund. The bench further directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation and the liability would be joint as well as several. The payment in the order is to be paid within a period of three months from the date of order.
Case: BALBIR SINGH DHALTA V. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS DLF INDIA LTD.) AND ORS. (CONSUMER CASE NO. 784 OF 2017)