Buyer Cannot Be Forced To Accept Possession After Unreasonable Delays: Delhi State Commission Holds M2K Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants booked a residential unit with M2K Infrastructure/builder and paid an initial amount towards the booking. They continued making payments as per the builder's demands. Despite adhering to the payment plan, construction on the site stopped without explanation from the builder. Efforts to secure a refund or an alternative unit were met with delays and unfulfilled promises. The builder eventually offered a different unit, but further demands for payments and discrepancies in the finishing of the flat led the complainants to refuse possession. Alleging poor construction quality and misrepresentation by the builder, the complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission. The complainant sought a refund of Rs 23,06,885 along with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs 20 lakhs towards mental agony and harassment.

Contentions of the Builder

The builder filed a written statement seeking dismissal of the complaint, stating that the apartment's construction was complete and that an Occupancy Certificate had been obtained. They argued the complainants failed to take possession and complete the necessary payments. The builder denied any service deficiencies or unfair practices, accused the complainants of concealing facts and spreading falsehoods, and argued the dispute should be handled through arbitration as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement, beyond the Consumer Commission's jurisdiction.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the complaint did not involve complex legal or factual issues, citing the judgments that affirm its competence to handle such matters efficiently. The complainants sought a refund due to the builder's failure to complete the apartment construction on time. The commission highlighted that despite the builder offering possession in 2016, the complainants refused due to the flat's poor condition. The Commission referenced judgments such as J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 and Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima (2018) 5 SCC 442, stating that a buyer cannot be forced to accept possession after unreasonable delays and is entitled to seek a refund with compensation. It concluded that the Consumer Commission had jurisdiction over the complaint, despite the builder's contention otherwise based on an arbitration clause in the agreement by referring to Emaar MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh (2019) CPJ 5 (SC). In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that if a consumer opts for specific remedies under consumer protection laws instead of arbitration, the courts can adjudicate the matter. The judgment emphasized that the existence of an arbitration clause does not preclude consumers from seeking relief under consumer laws if they choose those remedies. The Commission also found the builder deficient in its services, noting the delay in construction and the poor condition of the flat offered for possession.

The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the builder to refund the complainants a sum of Rs. 23,06,885 along with interest @ 6% p.a. along with Rs. 1,00,000 as costs for mental agony and harassment. It also directed the builder to pay Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs.

Case Title: Sanjeev Parashar Vs. M/S M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 932/2016