#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 16 Supreme Court: Lawyers Not Subject to Consumer Protection Act. On May
The complainant booked a flat located in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The developer allocated a flat through an allotment letter, and a buyer-seller agreement was signed on the same day. According to clause 9.1 of the agreement, the developer was obligated to hand over possession of the flat within 2 years plus 2 months. However, to date, the developer has failed to fulfill this obligation. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 26,34,213, which exceeded the basic cost of the flat, as demanded by the developer. Additionally, the complainant discovered that the construction of the project was incomplete, and no occupation certificate had been obtained from the relevant authority. Moreover, the complainant received a demand letter from the developer requesting an unlawful sum of Rs. 1,15,000 for holding charges, Rs. 44,184 for maintenance charges, and meter charges totaling Rs. 56,252. However, the complainant had already paid the meter charges. Consequently, the complainant has approached this commission, alleging deficiency on the part of the developer.
A developer’s failure to fulfill the contractual obligation to provide a flat to a buyer within the agreed timeframe constitutes a deficiency of service. This failure represents a fault or inadequacy in the manner of performance as per the contract. The commission emphasized that its jurisdiction, under Section 14(1)(e), includes directing the developer to rectify such deficiencies. Consequently, compensation is considered necessary to restore the buyer for the delay caused by the developer beyond the agreed possession period. The delay not only causes inconvenience but also affects the legitimate expectations of the buyers, impacting their future plans based on the purchased property being available for use and occupation.
The commission directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant, i.e., Rs. 26,34,213, along with Rs. 2,00,000 as cost for mental agony and the litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 20,000.
Case Title: Mr. D.P. Dhankar Vs. MS Belgravia Projects Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 1299/2017
#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 16 Supreme Court: Lawyers Not Subject to Consumer Protection Act. On May
#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 15 Bengaluru Special Court Grants Bail to JD(S) Leader HD Revanna in
#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 14 SC granted interim bail to Kejriwal specifying Bail Conditions The Supreme
#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 13 Developers failure to fulfil timeframe contractual obligation leads to deficiency in
#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 11 Right to Choose and reproductive freedom a fundamental right. The Supreme
#JANKAARBHARAT Blog 12 Pleading guilty won’t help in compromising for a lesser sentence. On