The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra, has held Maya Realtors liable for deficiency in service for handing over possession of a booked flat to a third party without the buyer’s consent.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The Complainant purchased a flat in the “Maya Heights” project from Maya Realtors. The builder agreed to construct the flat and transfer possession upon completion, and the Complainant paid the full sale price of Rs. 15,81,650. However, the Complainant later discovered that a stranger had occupied the flat despite its construction being completed. This prompted him to file a criminal complaint, which was classified as a civil dispute. Subsequently, the Complainant filed a lawsuit in the Sub Court to evict the stranger; this case is still pending. In this suit, the builders claimed they had given possession of the flat to the Complainant, which he contested. Moreover, the builders never informed the Complainant about the completion of the flat or handed over the keys, indicating a clear deficiency in service. As a result, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint with the State of Kerala, seeking Rs. 1 Crore in compensation and costs. The State Commission upheld the complaint, directing the builder to pay the Complainant Rs. 10,00,000 in compensation and Rs. 5,000 in litigation costs. The builder subsequently appealed this decision to the National Commission.
CONTENTIONS OF THE BUILDER
Upon receiving notice, the builder, represented by its Director, responded to the complaint. The builder asserted that the construction of the flat was completed and that possession was handed over to the Complainant. They refuted the allegation of inducting a stranger, claiming it to be false. According to the builder, the Complainant held a housewarming ceremony after taking possession and subsequently leased the flat to the stranger. Therefore, they argued that the complaint should be dismissed.
OBSERVATION BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
The National Commission focused on determining whether the builder fulfilled its obligations under the agreement with the Complainant and whether breaching the agreement by allowing a third party into the flat without the Complainant’s consent occurred. The Commission observed that the flat was not handed over to the Complainant upon completion and that a third party was inducted without consent, highlighting a clear deficiency in service. Furthermore, the Commission emphasized that the builder did not provide substantial evidence justifying interference with the comprehensive and well-reasoned order issued by the State Commission.
The National Commission affirmed the State Commission’s order and dismissed the appeal.