Consolidation Of Multiple Claims Totaling Over Rs. 1 Crore Is Within National Commission's Jurisdiction: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants jointly booked plots based on the Jaypee Sports Infrastructure's/builder's representations, paying their deposits. The builder allocated specific plots and set a possession deadline of 18 months from the allotment date, extendable by a 90-day grace period. However, by the due date, the builder had not developed the township or provided possession of the plots. The builder issued additional demands for payment despite incomplete development work. A site visit revealed unfinished roads, with some areas lacking basic foundations. None of the promised facilities or amenities were present in the plotted area as advertised. Subsequently, the complainants requested a refund, to which the builder responded, denying the refund claim and asserting possession had been offered. Due to the builder's failure to develop the plots as promised, including basic amenities necessary for construction, the complainants filed their grievances before the National Commission seeking a refund of their deposits.

Contentions of the Builder

According to the builder, they completed the project and offered possession along with final demands, but the complainants refused to pay the balance and take possession, opting instead to file for a refund. The builder cited a delay caused by a groundwater extraction ban imposed by the National Green Tribunal in 2013, which affected project progress temporarily. The builder asserted their right to extend project timelines under standard terms and conditions. The builder argued that as per the provisional allotment letter and attached terms, the complainants were obligated to take possession and were not entitled to a refund. They raised preliminary objections, stating the complaint was time-barred, and questioned the complainants' consumer status. Moreover, the builder contended that since the total cost of the plot exceeded Rs. 67 lakhs and the complainants were treated separately, the complaint did not fall within the jurisdictional limits of the Commission.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the complainants relied on the builder's brochure and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512, which emphasized the builder's obligation to deliver promised amenities. The commission highlighted that such amenities significantly affect buyers' quality of life and investment value. It was asserted that developers cannot evade responsibility for failing to fulfill explicit commitments to flat purchasers. The commission upheld the complainants' argument that due to the delayed provision of basic amenities, the offer of possession did not comply with the terms of the allotment letter. Furthermore, the commission dismissed objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Brigade Enterprises vs. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138, allowing two sets of complainants with an aggregate claim exceeding Rs. 1 crore to be legally joined.

Therefore, the commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the builder to refund the entire deposited amount with interest at 9% per annum within two months from the respective deposit dates.

Case Title: Ankur Arora Vs. Jaypee Sports International Limited & Anr

Case Number: C.C No. 1023/2015