Deficiency In The Builder's Service Is Established If Possession Is Not Provided Within 42 Or 48 Months, Delhi State Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants engaged in an agreement with the Opposite Party(OP) to buy an apartment, with the commitment from the OP to complete the apartment's delivery within three years. Despite the complainants making substantial payments over time, the OP has yet to commence the construction of the tower where the complainants' apartment is intended to be located. When the complainants visited the OP's office to inquire about the apartment's delivery, they did not receive a satisfactory response. In expressing their dissatisfaction, the complainants sent a notice to the OP, seeking a refund of their deposited money along with interest, but their request was ignored.

Contentions of the opposition

During the course of proceedings, the OP filed the written statement but failed to file the evidence by way of affidavit despite opportunities via several orders. Consequently, the OP's right to file the evidence through affidavit was closed. Since the right of the Opposite Party to file the evidence by way of affidavit was closed, the contentions made in the written statement cannot be considered in the present case. Thus, the averments made by the Complainants in the present complaint remain unrebutted. The OP did issue receipts as to the payments made by the complainants.

Observations by the Commission

The bench referred to the case of Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Shobha Arora and Ors. to address whether the Opposite Party is deficient in providing services to the Complainants. The judgement stated that in accordance with Section 46 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 if a contract mandates a promisor to fulfill their commitment without the need for any request from the promisee, and if no specific timeframe for performance is indicated, the obligation must be completed within a reasonable period. The Commission elucidated that the examination of established legal principles reveals that if possession is not delivered within 42 or 48 months, it establishes a deficiency in the builder's service. In the current case, no specific timeframe was specified for handing over possession of the apartment by the builder. Evidently, the Opposite Party has not provided possession of the apartment to date, and over nine years have elapsed since the booking. Consequently, the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party is conclusively proven.

The bench mandated the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainants, i.e., Rs. 18,18,098.77/- along with an interest rate of 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which the Opposite received each installment till the date of the judgement. In addition to the aforesaid relief, the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs.

Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Mahesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposing party: Adv. Alok Tripathi

Case Title: Mr. Arvinder Singh Aneja & Anr. Vs M/S Agrante Reality Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 421/2016

Click Here To Read/Download The Order