The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, ruled that builders must deliver a completed unit along with the conveyance deed, and failure to do so amounts to a deficiency in service.
Case Summary
The complainant booked a flat with Marvel Developers for their “Marvel Piazza” project in Pune, which promised completion and possession by a specified date. After making significant payments, the complainant encountered delays and issues, including the project’s location being partly within an Air Force restricted area, affecting promised amenities. Despite multiple follow-ups, the developer failed to deliver possession or refund the payments. The complainant pursued legal action, including filing complaints with the police and the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), but these issues were not resolved, leading to a consumer complaint.
Developer’s Arguments
The developer admitted to the booking, agreements, and payments but contended that the project, “Marvel Piazza,” comprises 11 buildings and did not include amenities affected by the Air Force restricted zone. The complainant had taken possession of the flats for interior work and received a rebate but later made unauthorized constructions, causing objections from municipal authorities and delays in obtaining the occupancy certificate. The developer claimed the complainant was responsible for delayed payments and alleged false criminal charges. They argued that the complaint was barred by limitation, filed for commercial gain, and not maintainable due to pending RERA complaints. The developer requested dismissal of the complaint.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited vs. Abhishek Khanna (2021), the developer’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed due to estoppel by election was baseless, as it was filed after complaints with MRERA. The complainants had withdrawn their MRERA complaints and settled, but the developer had consented to this Commission’s jurisdiction for the remaining issues. The claim that the complaint was time-barred was also rejected, as possession was offered within two years of obtaining the occupancy certificate. The Supreme Court rulings in Lata Construction vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah (2000), Meerut Development Authority vs. Mukesh K. Gupla IV (2012), and Samruddi Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022) affirmed that a builder must deliver a completed unit and execute the conveyance deed, and failing to do so constitutes a continuing wrong. The Commission found no evidence of the developer receiving compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land transferred for public use, dismissing individual compensation claims. The claim for ₹25 lakhs in compensation for unprovided amenities was rejected as the sanctioned plan did not include these amenities, and photographs showed that promised amenities were provided. Delays in possession were attributed to factors such as demonetization, unauthorized construction by the cmplainants, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which justified an extension of time. However, compensation for the delay from January 2018 to December 2019 was deemed appropriate, calculated at 6% interest per annum, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in DLF Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Capital Green Flat Buyer’s Association (2021).
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