CASE TITLE-
Veena Khanna vs Ansal Properties and Industries Limited
DATE OF ORDER-
9 July 2007
BENCH-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT, MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
PARTIES-
Petitioner: Mrs. Veena Khanna Respondent: M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., M/s. Adharshila Towers (Pvt.) Ltd. & M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd.
SUBJECT-
The case deals with the protection of rights of consumers on delay in construction and completion of property and the liability of the builder under Consumer Protection Act,2019
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986(before amendment) defines Deficiency under sec 2(g). It defines deficiency as any flaw, imperfection, shortcoming, or defect in the feature, quality, amount, nature, worth, authenticity, capacity, or standard that must be maintained and regulated in accordance with the laws and statutes in effect or any agreement/contract claimed by the seller with regard to the products and goods.
The act provides that the Consumer can file a complain in case where the builder has failed to deliver property on time.
The cat under sec 2(47) defines unfair trade practices which includes manufacturing spurious goods or providing defective services, not issuing cash memos or bills for the goods purchased or services rendered, refusing to take back or withdraw the goods or services and not refunding the consideration taken for the purchase of the goods or services, disclosing the personal information of the consumer.
OVERVIEW-
- The complainant in response to the advertisement of construction and sale of the flats offered to buy a flat at Rs.23,33,344 and entered into an agreement on 9.7.1996. Later, she gave certain amount of money on different dates. But stopped to pay further due to no progress in the construction.
- The opposite party via letter on 9.1.1998 agreed to deliver the property by 1.6.1999. But what happened was that there was no construction of the flat.
- Aggrieved by this, complainant demanded her money vack with an interest of 18% p.a which the opposite party refuse to pay. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before state commission of Delhi.
- The State Commission allowed the complainant to get refunded with Rs 15lakh along with interest at 13% p.a
- The reason behind 13% was that the complainant had got a loan on the said interest. Apart from this, court also provided an alternative. It said that the opposite party may either choose to deliver the possession of property to the complainant or refund the money with the said interest.
- The complainant wasn’t satisfied with the order of the State Commission. This was so because the market prices have undergone changes over the years. Refund of 15lakhs with interest of 13%p. a served in favour of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the order, complainant filed an appeal.
ISSUE-
- The major issue evolved around the liability of builder because of deficiency. The Consumer has the right to get appropriate compensation as per the Consumer Protection Act. Also, the builder will be governed under unfair trade practices.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPLLEANT-
- The counsel said that the complainant were ready an willing to take the possession of the flat. But it was the unusual delay caused by the opposite party that compelled them to file a complain. It was contended that the appellant being government employees cannot risk such huge amount.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT-
- The counsel of the opposite party argued that there was no fixed period decided to deliver the possession of the flat. Also, they were ready to deliver the possession to the complainant. Hence the complain filed by appellant was baseless and should be dismissed.
JUDGEMENT-
- NCDRC took into the account the contention raised by the appellant regarding the increase in market prices of the immovable property during the period of pendency of the case. It is true for State Commission to order for refunding the amount along with interest on which the appellant has got loan from the bank but doing is not fair compensation for the appellant. It won’t be fair to not consider the delay in construction and not delivering the possession of the flat to the appellant. It is necessary to put attention on the fact that the delay in construction of flat has made it impossible for appellant who us a retired government employee to purchase a new flat at the present market price.
- Consequently, the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs 7,50,000 as compensation. This price was calculated by keeping the escalated value of the flat. However, the builder was given an choice to provide alternative flat of same service and ambience as was agreed by the builder to the complainant earlier.
CONCLUSION-
Thus, the judgement by NCDRC brought a clear interpretation as to what remedy is available to the consumers when they suffer from non-delivery of possession of property.
NCDRC overturned the decision of the Stare Commission for providing adequate relief to the appellant. Fair compensation to the appellant is not confined merely to a fixed interest rate but it has to be assured that what other factors are to be involved for fair compensation. The decision emphasized that sufficient compensation should be given such that the amount enables appellant to buy a new flat. The interest payment are not sufficient as they do not serve the said purpose and also is less in the given point of time when the judgement is delivered.
