The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chaired by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, found Vatika Limited responsible for a deficiency in service due to delays in transferring possession after receiving the deposit amount.
Case Summary
The complainant had booked a residential unit in the “Urban Woods” project by Vatika Limited, paying a booking fee and signing an agreement with the expectation of receiving possession within three years. The agreement included a modular kitchen and car parking space, with a housing loan managed by HDFC Limited. However, Vatika Limited failed to complete construction on time and did not fulfill the agreed terms, including issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. The complainant later faced additional demands and observed that promised project features, like the car parking space and entry from the Ajmer Express Highway, were not developed. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission of Rajasthan, which ruled in their favor. The State Commission ordered Vatika Limited to refund the booking amount of ₹5,71,245 with 9% interest, pay the housing loan of ₹30,46,643 to HDFC Limited within one month, and awarded ₹5,100 in costs but no compensation for mental anguish. Both parties appealed the decision to the National Commission.
Builder’s Contentions
The builder argued that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and that the complaint’s valuation was inflated to secure a refund. They claimed the dispute should be resolved through arbitration and asserted that the complainant had defaulted on payments and showed no interest in possession, despite being informed. The builder maintained that the project and flats were completed and requested dismissal of the complaint.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission referenced prior rulings, including the Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devasis Rudra case, which deemed indefinite delays in possession as unreasonable, and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan, which affirmed buyers’ right to refunds for significant delays. The Supreme Court has supported the view that buyers should not be expected to wait indefinitely and are entitled to refunds for substantial delays. In terms of interest rates, the Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor found 9% interest to be fair compensation. Additionally, the Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda emphasized that multiple compensations for a single deficiency are unjustifiable. Although the builder argued that a Certificate of Occupation was not required under local regulations, it was deemed necessary for a clear title.
The National Commission upheld the appeal and directed the builder to refund the booking amount of ₹5,71,245 to the complainant with 9% annual interest from the deposit date until payment. The builder was also instructed to settle the housing loan of ₹30,46,643 with HDFC Limited within one month and to pay ₹50,000 in litigation costs to the complainant.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa