NCDRC Directs TATA Housing To Refund The Entire Amount Paid For Flat Due To Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the presiding member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as member directed TATA Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants with an interest @9% p.a. The bench was hearing a complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the...
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the presiding member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as member directed TATA Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants with an interest @9% p.a. The bench was hearing a complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the TATA Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.
The complainants submitted that the opposite party launched a group housing project in the name “Tata Primanti” in Sector-72 in Gurgaon in the year 2011 and widely publicised it’s facalities and amenities. The complainants booked a villa in the project in the year 2012 and deposited an amount of Rs. 5000000/-. Soon the complainants were allotted a villa , the total price of which was Rs.84175000/-. As per the payment plan, 25 % of the amount was payable within 45 days of the allotment while 75% of the amount was payable on the completion of the brick work and other expenses were to be paid at the time of the offer of possession.
The complainants stated that in 2016 they were informed that the construction of the viola cannot be completed and that the allotment can be shifted to an apartment. When the complainants asked for a refund instead, they were informed by the opposite party that only a miniscule amount will be returned and hence they should take the allotment of an apartment instead. After agreeing to the aforementioned, the complainants demanded to inspect the said apartment but they found several deficiencies in its construction which were not removed despite insisting several times.
The opposite party took the plea of Force Majeure as the reason due to which the construction of the villa could not be completed. They stated that there was a shortage of water that led to a delay in construction which further caused the demobilisation of workers. Later the work was halted due to heavy rainfalls and ban on sand excavation also. They also stated that in such a reason the opposite parties are entitled an extension of time as well.
The bench observed that the plea of Force Majeure was for a limited period when the construction was stopped due to restriction of ground water usage. It was also noted that the plea of force majeure due to ban on excavation of sand is also insuffici9ent because the ban was imposed in in the year 2015 while the construction was supposed to be completed by 2014. Similarly the construction was halted due to heavy rainfall was alleged during 29.07.2016 to 01.09.2016 and ban by National Green Tribunal was imposed on 08.11.2016. All these force majeure reasons are for the entire period of delay. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, in not offering possession.
On the concern of changing the allotment from the villa to an apartment, the bench observed that complainants had no option but to accept the allotment as they were threatened that the refund amount would be miniscule.the bench also noted that the concerned apartment buyer agreement was one sided and unreasonable and is therefore not binding on the complainants. The opposite party arbitrarily denied delayed compensation to the complainants.
The bench further observed that on inspection of the apartment by the complainants and the son in law as well as the officer of the opposite party, several deficiencies in construction were pointed out. These were also acknowledged by the opposite party through an E- mail, but inspite of it, it were not removed although the complainants gave emails on 16.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 to the opposite party for removing deficiency but the opposite party was insisting to deposit the demanded amount. Ultimately due to non-removal of the deficiencies the complainants opted for refund instead of taking possession. The opposite party did not produce any communication informing the complainants that deficiencies in constructions, which were acknowledged by them, had been made good. On this ground also the complainants are entitled to claim refund.
In the light of the aforementioned observations the bench directed the opposite party directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.
Case: RAJ CAPRIHAN & ANR. V. TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1239 OF 2018