National Consumer Commission Holds RPS Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant booked a flat with RPS Infrastructure and was given a pre-signed Apartment agreement to sign. According to the agreement, possession of the flat was supposed to be handed over within 48 months. The complainant found the agreement one-sided with clauses against their interest, but they felt compelled to sign. The builder deviated from the approved plan, constructing shops before the complainant's unit and blocking the view and personal lawn. The complainant hasn't received the promised shelter despite paying almost the entire sale amount. The complaint is an original petition filed before this commission seeking a refund of Rs.1,59,68,231 with future interest at 9%, compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The builder argued that the complainant chose a Construction Linked Payment Plan, leading to due installments and a breach of the buyer's agreement. The complainants later secured a loan from the State Bank of India, mortgaging the flat through a Tripartite Agreement with the builder. Initially set at 48 months from the Buyer's Agreement, the project's completion faced delays due to the National Green Tribunal and Supreme Court orders during the COVID-19 lockdown. The builder extended the completion period by nine months. They claimed to have to arrange additional funds for construction beyond the amounts received from allottees. After completing nine months, possession was offered, and the builder demanded the remaining amount, which the complainant did not pay, leading to a breach of the agreement.

The builder contended the complainant's argument about the construction of shops in front of the area allotted to the complainant for which they paid the PLC and responded by stating that the internal development of the project was their responsibility, while external services like roads, water supply, sewer lines, and electricity were the obligations of DG, TCP, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), and other competent authorities. The builder contended that they entered into agreements and obtained licenses for project development with these authorities. The builder claimed that the complainants voluntarily applied for flat allotment after being fully informed about the project and were aware of the builder's and authorities' obligations under the applicable laws.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that the complainant booked a flat with the builder and paid almost the entire consideration, including Preferential Location Charges(PLC) charges. The builder's claim about the construction of shops was deemed unjustified, as they had promised exclusive views for which they charged a premium. The builder's argument that the layout plan was subject to change and internal/external development was the authorities' responsibility was rejected. The commission found this couldn't undermine the complainant's right, especially since they paid PLC based on the originally approved layout plan. Additionally, the defense of force majeure by the builder, citing the Covid-19 lockdown and delayed payments as reasons for project delay, was rejected. The Commission, in line with its previous ruling in Anil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s Nexgen Infracon Private Limited emphasized the need for specific evidence linking external factors to project delays, concluding that reliance on force majeure conditions is not justifiable without such substantiation. Furthermore, the commission observed that the argument of the builder that the plans were subsequently altered as it was responsible for the internal development of the project is clearly an unfair trade practice under section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, since it was admittedly without notice to the complainants and after collection of specific charges for PLC and additional charges.

The Commission directed the insurance company to compensate the complainant the sum of ₹3,19,56,008 with an interest rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim till and Rs. 50,000 as the cost of proceedings.

Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Rakesh Mittal & Adv. Ajay Harshana

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. Shivam Taneja

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Taneja Vs. M/S RPS Infrastructure Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 2733/2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Order