Delhi Consumer Commission Orders ARN Infrastructures To Refund ₹10 Lakh With Interest For Failure To Hand Over Possession

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Ms. Pinki, Member (Judicial), and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, Member (General) has held ARN Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and breach of agreement for failing to provide valid possession and completion certificate of the booked unit, and directed the builder to refund ₹10 lakh to the complainant along with monthly assured returns, interest, and additional compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. Brief Facts of the Case: The complainant, Shri Shekhar Sharma, had booked a 500 sq. ft. commercial unit in a project called “The Globus”, developed by ARN Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd., located at Greater Noida (West), Uttar Pradesh. He booked the unit on 14th May 2010 by paying a total amount of ₹10 lakh. According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between both parties, the builder promised to complete the project and hand over possession by June 2010. It was also agreed that till the possession was given, the builder would pay an assured return of ₹25,000 per month to the complainant. After booking, Shri Sharma paid the full amount, but the project was not completed within the promised time. The builder neither handed over the possession of the unit nor regularly paid the assured monthly returns. In the beginning, a few monthly payments were made, but later they completely stopped. When the complainant repeatedly approached the builder through letters and personal visits but the builder made excuses, saying that the delay was due to economic slowdown and a slump in the IT and real estate markets, which were beyond his control. Later, when questioned again, the builder claimed that the project was completed in 2010 and that he had received a completion certificate. However, he could not produce any genuine or valid document to prove his claim. Upon further inquiry, it was found that the builder only had a conditional part occupancy certificate, not a full completion certificate. Having faced continuous delay, financial loss, and mental harassment, the complainant finally filed a case before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and demanded that the builder either give lawful possession of the unit or refund the entire ₹10 lakh with interest and pending assured returns. Contentions of the Complainant: The complainant stated that he had paid the full amount of ₹10 lakh to the builder on time, but the builder neither completed the construction within the promised time nor handed over possession of the unit. He submitted that the builder had assured delivery of possession by June 2010, along with a monthly assured return of ₹25,000, but the payments stopped after a few months. The complainant argued that the builder repeatedly misled him by giving false assurances and incorrect information about the progress of the project. He also pointed out that the builder falsely claimed that the project was completed and that a completion certificate had been obtained, whereas, in reality, there was only a conditional part occupancy certificate. The complainant contended that these acts clearly amounted to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on the part of the builder. Contentions of the Opposite Party: The builder stated that the delay in completing the project on time was beyond their control, due to a slowdown in the real estate sector and certain administrative issues. The builder claimed that the project was completed in 2010 itself and had received the completion certificate. It was contended that the complainant had booked the unit for commercial purposes, and therefore, he did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. The builder argued that the complainant had filed the complaint deliberately to gain an undue advantage, making his claims unreasonable. It was also stated that the complainant's refusal to take possession of the unit caused delays and losses in the project, for which he himself was responsible. Observations and Decision of the Commission: The Commission observed that the complainant had purchased the unit to earn a livelihood and not for any commercial activity. The Commission held that the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission found that the builder failed to provide a valid completion certificate and actual possession, which amounted to deficiency in service. The Commission noted that the builder issued only a partial possession letter and did not make arrangements for actual possession of the unit. The Commission ruled that the builder committed deficiency of service, unfair trade practices, and breach of agreement. The Commission ordered the builder to...

Delhi Consumer Commission Orders ARN Infrastructures To Refund ₹10 Lakh With Interest For Failure To Hand Over Possession

Praveen Mishra

Tags