National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Holds Ruchi Reality Holdings Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Delay In Handing Over The Possession Of The Flat

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants reserved a flat with Ruchi Reality Holdings/developer by paying Rs. 5 lakhs. They consistently made payments whenever requested by the developer, totaling Rs. 95,08,517. However, the developer failed to finish construction and deliver possession of the flat within the agreed timeframe. The complainants visited the site multiple times seeking updates on construction progress and possession but received no satisfactory responses. Consequently, they sent a legal notice to the developer. Claiming a lack of service quality from the developer, the complainants have filed the current consumer complaint.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The developer submitted their written response, admitting to the booking of the flat, the agreement between the parties, and the deposit of Rs. 10,26,534. They disclosed that they had entered into a joint venture agreement with the property owner and obtained provisional environmental clearance from the relevant authority. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation revised the sanctioned plan in 2010 and 2013. Subsequently, the developer constructed four blocks with various flats/apartments and car parking spaces as per the sanctioned plan, obtaining completion certificates for them. However, they found that the car parking space was insufficient and decided to build a multi-level car parking facility, applying for a revised sanctioned plan. Additionally, they sought modification of the provisional environmental clearance. The developer faced a complaint under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for violating environmental provisions, resulting in a fine imposed by the court. They made efforts to obtain environmental clearance but faced obstacles due to legal proceedings and administrative issues. The developer attributed the delay in project completion to factors beyond their control and asserted that there was no deficiency in their services, hence requesting dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that according to the agreement, possession of the flat was supposed to be handed over by a certain date with a grace period, subject to force majeure. Furthermore, the developer received payments despite being aware of lacking necessary approvals, making it inappropriate on their part. The commission highlighted that although the developer claimed to have obtained environmental clearance and a completion certificate later, they offered possession after the complaint was filed. The commission cited Supreme Court cases to assert that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession, thus ruling in favor of the complainants for a refund with interest. The developer objected to the complainants being considered consumers but provided no evidence to support this claim. The commission relied on the judgement in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, wherein court held that the buyer cannot be made to wait for indefinite period for possession.

The commission party allowed the complaint and directed the developer to refund an amount of Rs.95,08,517 with interest @ 9% from the date of respective deposits till realization along with Rs.50,000 towards the cost of proceeding.

Case Title: Jay Kumar Manot Vs. Ruchi Reality Holdings Ltd.

Case Number: C.C No. 1986/2017