Handing Over Possession To Third Party Without Buyer's Consent Is Deficiency In Service: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The Complainant booked a flat in the project “Maya Heights” by the Maya Realtors/builder. An agreement was made in which the builder agreed to construct the flat and hand over possession to him. The total sale consideration of Rs.15,81,650 was fully paid by the Complainant. Later, the complainant discovered that although the building's construction was complete, a stranger had been inducted into the flat. Consequently, the Complainant filed a criminal complaint, which was referred to as a civil dispute. He then filed a suit before the Sub Court, seeking the eviction of the stranger, which is currently pending. In this suit, the builders claimed they had given possession of the flat to the Complainant, which he disputed. Furthermore, the builders never informed the Complainant about the completion of the flat's construction and never handed over the keys, demonstrating a clear deficiency in service. Thus, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State of Kerala, seeking compensation of Rs. 1 Crore and costs. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the builder to pay the Complainant Rs. 10,00,000 in compensation and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs. Consequently, the builder appealed against the State Commission's order to the National Commission.

Contentions of the builder

Upon receiving notice, the builder, represented by its Director, responded to the complaint. The builder contended that the flat's construction was completed and handed over to the Complainant. They claimed the allegation of inducting a stranger was false. According to the builder, the Complainant conducted a housewarming after taking possession and subsequently leased the flat to the stranger. Therefore, they argued that the complaint should be dismissed.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the primary issue was whether the builder fulfilled its obligations under the agreement with the Complainant and if the agreement was breached by inducting a third party into the flat without the Complainant's consent. The Commission noted that the flat was not handed over to the Complainant upon completion and that a third party was inducted without the Complainant's consent, demonstrating a clear deficiency in service. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the builder failed to present any substantial evidence to warrant interference with the detailed and well-reasoned order of the State Commission.

The National Commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: M/S. Maya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.P. Ghosh

Case Number: F.A. No. 1777/2017