Thursday, March 15, 2018

NCDRC_sale of two shops to a single person not livelihood or self employment but commercial purpose



Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs Senior Town Planner HUDA, reported as 2008 (2)C.P.J. 329: 2008 (4) in which it has been held as under:-

“4. Words occurring towards the end in above sub-clause (ii)- ‘but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose’ were added and the explanation substituted by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.203. Bare reading of the Explanation would show that services which are availed of for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment only  are not to be treated for commercial purpose. Alleged service for providing two dwelling units at a cost of Rs.46,65,000/- by OP No.6, obviously, is not for earning livelihood by means of self employment by the complainant – company and the transaction is relatable to service for commercial purpose which has been excluded from the purview of the definition as given in Section 2(I)(d)(ii) w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Thus, complainant not being a consumer the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Act. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed as such”.

Friday, February 9, 2018

NCDRC_Commission under obligation to decide by a well-reasoned order if a document is to be taken on record or not



In any case, if certain documents are filed by either of the parties before the State Commission, it is the duty of that Commission to decide by a well-reasoned order, if such documents are to be taken on record or not.  


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 17/02/2017 in Complaint No. 12/2011 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. M/S. SAPTAGIRISA CONSTRUCTIONS & 2 ORS.
PLOT NO. 195/C, WESTERN HILLS, OPP. JNTUC, KUKATPALLY,
HYDERABAD-
2. VALLU SANDEEP S/O. LAE VENKATESWARULU
PLOT NO. 195/C, WESTERN HILLS, OPP. JNTUC, KUKATPALLY,
HYDERABAD-
3. VALLU SIVA SAILAJA W/O. LATE V. VENKATESWARULU
PLOT NO. 195/C, WESTERN HILLS, OPP. JNTUC, KUKATPALLY,
HYDERABAD-
4. VALLU SRUTHI D/O. LATE V. VENKATESWARULU
PLOT NO. 195/C, WESTERN HILLS, OPP. JNTUC, KUKATPALLY,
HYDERABAD-
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. P.V. NAGARATNAM
W/O. P. SRINIVAS RAO, R/O. FLAT NO. 506, SHANTI APARTMENTS, BHAGYANAGAR COLONY, OPP: K.P.H.B., KUKATPALLY,
HYDERABAD-
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER

For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 01 Feb 2018
ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellants
:
Ms. Madhavi Divan, Advocate
Mr. A.V.S. Raju, Advocate

For the Respondent

:
Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate



PRONOUNCED ON:    01st  February  2018

 

ORDER


PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
          This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 17.02.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in application C.C.I.A. No. 1065/2016 filed in consumer complaint CC/12/2011, filed before the State Commission by the respondent/complainant, vide which, the said application was allowed.
2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that he had entered into a development agreement on 24.09.2007 with the appellant/opposite party (OP) vide which, he hired the services of the appellant/OP for construction of apartments of 18000 sq. ft. on the land measuring 770.77 sq. yards belonging to him in Madinaguda village, Rangareddy District.  However, even after three years from the date of the said agreement, the OP did not initiate the construction and the development work, as per the agreed terms and conditions.  Further, the OP started selling flats from the share of the complainant as well, causing huge financial loss as well as mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the State Commission, seeking directions to the OP to pay compensation on account of non-construction of certain portions of the project.  The said complaint was allowed vide order of the State Commission dated 20.03.2012, vide which, the OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 55,55,000/- to the complainant, alongwith compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and cost of litigation as Rs. 20,000/-.  During proceedings before the State Commission, the appellant/OP did not file their written version to the complaint, neither their evidence affidavit was filed on record.  The OP builder challenged the said order by way of first appeal no. 666/2013 before this Commission, which was decided on 15.10.2014.  It was ordered with the consent of both the parties that the consumer complaint C.C. No. 12/2011 be restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication.  The appellant/OP were allowed to file their written version to the complaint and also to lead evidence in support of their case.  During pendency before the State Commission, the complainant filed an application in the shape of an affidavit, C.C.I.A. No. 1605/2016, through which, it was pleaded that certain documents filed by the OP should be given back to them.  The State Commission passed an order dated 17.02.2017 on the said application, which states as follows:-
Docket order dated: 17.02.2017.  J.B.N.R.N. (P) PVR (M)
          Heard both sides.  In the circumstance stated in the affidavit, the petition is ordered.”
3.      Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the OP builder has challenged the same by way of the present appeal.  It was pleaded during arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants that the State Commission had passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the appellants.  Moreover, the said order had been passed, without stating any reason for allowing the application.  The learned counsel stated that the application C.C.I.A. No. 1605/2016 was not maintainable in the eyes of law.  The learned counsel also stated that they were prepared to file the original documents on record.  The complainant had failed to establish that the documents being filed by them were bogus or fabricated.
4.      In reply, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the OP builder had filed only photocopies of the documents, which could not be taken on record.  The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law.
5.      We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
6.      By virtue of the order dated 15.10.2014, passed by this Commission, the OP builder was allowed to file their written version to the complaint before the State Commission and also to file their evidence affidavit etc.  It is the case of the OP builder that alongwith their evidence affidavit, it was their right to file the necessary documents, which would have a bearing on the outcome of the case.  In any case, if certain documents are filed by either of the parties before the State Commission, it is the duty of that Commission to decide by a well-reasoned order, if such documents are to be taken on record or not.  By virtue of the impugned order, the State Commission have not recorded any reasons for allowing the application filed by the complainant and simply directed that certain documents should not be allowed to be taken on record.  The order passed by the State Commission is not in accordance with law, as the same is a vague/sketchy order.  The present appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 17.02.2017, passed by the State Commission is set aside.  The State Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter after recording a well-reasoned order on the issue of admissibility of the documents filed by either of the parties.  There shall be no order as to costs.
 
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

UP Apartment Act_a landmark judgement


M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Others (14.11.2013 - ALLHC) : MANU/UP/1765/2013

Issues for Adjudication

42. Following issues have been raised by the petitioners for consideration of the Court:

        I.            Whether the original plan, which was shown to purchasers, could be amended without obtaining previous consent of intending purchasers as stated in proviso to Section 4(4) after 19.3.2010/July 2010?

      II.            Whether Purchasable FAR of 33% allows the builder to construct new stones in existing building to encroach common areas and facilities?

    III.            Whether the policy of Purchasable FAR is contrary to the Statute, illegal and liable to be struck down?

    IV.            Whether the builder is entitled to run community center as a private club or claim any part of common areas and facilities as private property? (In some cases the land is freehold)

      V.            Whether Section 14(2) gives any right to the builder to resist/disallow formation of a RWA by the apartment owners in Violation of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India?

    VI.            Whether intending purchaser under Section 4(4) would also include residents living in the same society who object to amendments in original plan after 19.3.2010/July 2010 with the concurrent reading of Section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development 1973?

  VII.            Whether the builder can resist (deemed) handing over of common areas and facilities after formation of RWA or after obtaining completion certificate and how does Competent Authority enforce deemed handed over if the builder refuses to honor the law?

VIII.            Whether apartment owner would include spouses/major children/family members of apartment owners so as to enable them to become member of RWA or shall it be limited to blood relatives on the basis of SPA or no one can be passed on the power?

    IX.            Whether the Deputy Registrar can resist recognition to RWA on the ground that byelaws framed under the Rules can't be implemented without obtaining clarification from Registrar?

      X.            Whether declaration as provided under Rules in a mandatory obligation on part of all builder of buildings having more than 4 apartments constructed or under construction in the State of U.P. to be provided to the Development Authority and what consequences would follow for non-compliance?

43. In addition the following issues have also been raised for adjudication in these writ petitions:

Writ Petition No. 33826 of 2012, Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Vice Chairman, GDA and others

(1)    Whether the promoter can resist handing over of society to duly constituted RWA on the pretext that some members are not owners.

(2)    Whether the promoter can challenge orders passed by GDA to hand over complex to RWA alongwith maintenance deposit of 9.5 crores.

Writ Petition No. 46099 of 2012, Abhinav Jain v. State of U.P. and others

(1)    Whether additional constructions have been made without obtaining consent under the Act by amending the original map which was shown to the intending purchaser.

(2)    Whether the promoter has caused encroachment on common undivided open park area by constructing new buildings.

(3)    Whether purchasable FAR of 33% can be allotted to builder after allotment of flats and start of construction approving change in original plan.

64. To sum up the conclusions drawn by us are as follows:

(1)    The U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 provides for a complete code for regulating the rights, duties and liabilities and for resolving the issues and disputes between the promoters and the apartment owners. The Act has overriding effect under Section 31(1) over all other laws on the subject notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being enforced.

(2)    The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in view of Section 29 of the U.P. Apartment Ownership Act, 2010, shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act apply to the transfer of any apartment together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant thereto made by the owner of such apartment, where such transfer is made by sale, lease, mortgage, exchange, gift or otherwise as they are applied to the transfer of any immovable property.

(3)    The apartment owner under Section 3(d) will not only the person or persons owning an apartment or the promoter or his nominee in case of unsold apartments with an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment in the percentage specified in the Deed of Apartment and includes the lessee of the land on which the building containing such apartment has been constructed, where the lease of such land is for a period of thirty years or more; it includes the spouse and children of the apartment owner and a lawful tenant of the allottee/owner of the allotment, which will also include officer or employee of the company/firm or association, which owns an apartment under a valid allotment letter and its tenant. It will also include a person holding valid power of attorney of the allottee/owner of the apartment, where it is owned individually, jointly or in the case of a company/firm/society and occupied without any right of occupation either as family member, tenant, employee or person holding power of attorney will not be included in the definition of apartment owner.

(4)    The U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, which has come into force w.e.f. 19.3.2010 is applicable to all the buildings, which have three or more than three apartments intended for any type of independent use including enclosed spaces located on one or more floors to be used for residential or official purposes or for the purpose of practising any profession or for carrying on any occupation, trade or business, excluding shopping malls and multiplexes. The word 'apartment' includes any garage or room whether or not adjacent to the building in which such apartment is located, if it has independent access to public street, road or to a common area leading to such street, road, used for parking cars or for residence of any domestic aid. The garage or such rooms, however, do not have any independent status as apartment, to carry with it any rights of common areas and facilities.

(5)    Each of the chapters namely Chapter-II Duties and Liabilities of Promoters; Chapter III Right and Obligations of Apartment Owners; Chapter IV Ownership, Heritability and Transferability of Apartment; Chapter V Declaration of Building and Deed of Apartment; Chapter VI Association of Apartment Owners and Bye-laws for the Registration of the Affairs of such Association; Chapter VII Common Profits, Common Expenses and Other Matters, are independent and that the rights and liabilities under these chapters can be enforced independently unless these are essentially depending upon rights and liabilities in other chapters subject to Chapter VIII 'Miscellaneous' with the ultimate control of the State Government of which directions have to be carried out by the competent authority as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 2011.

(6)    Chapter V Declaration of Building and Deed of Apartment, carries within it the content, which fulfills the primary objective of the Act. The declaration under Section 12 falling in the said chapter, with which the complete information as provided in Form-A under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2011 with Annexure-A to F and Schedule A, must be enclosed as mandated by Section 13 with the deed of transfer, is mandatory for handing over possession of any apartment constructed after the commencement of the Act and also to get such transfer deed registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

(7)    Under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 every person to whom any apartment is sold or transferred by the promoter shall subject to other provisions of the Act be entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of the apartment so sold or otherwise transferred. He is under sub-section (2) entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of apartment and shall be entitled to such percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities as may be specified in the deed of apartment and such percentage shall be computed by taking, as a basis, the area of the apartment in relation to the aggregate area of all apartments of the building. Such percentage of undivided interest under sub-section (3)(a) in the common areas and facilities shall have a permanent character, and shall not be altered without the written consent of all the apartment owners and approval of the competent authority, and which shall not be separated from the apartment to which it pertains. It shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with apartment, even though such interest is not expressly mentioned in the conveyance or other instrument. The common areas and facilities under sub-section (4) cannot be transferred and will remain undivided with the apartment. These cannot be partitioned or subject to any division and will be enjoyed by the apartment owner under sub-section (5), without hindrance or encroaching upon the lawful rights of the other apartment owners.

(8)    The 'limited common areas and facilities', which are specified in writing by the promoter before the allotment, sale or other transfer of any apartment as reserved for use of certain apartment or apartments to the exclusion of the other apartments as defined in Section 3(s) and the 'independent areas', which have been declared but not included as common areas for joint use of apartments, and which may be sold by the promoter without the interference of other apartment owners under Section 3(p), must be clearly defined and delineated in the declaration under Section 12, failing which the promoter will not be entitled to claim these common areas and facilities to be limited or independent. Any dispute with regard to common areas and facilities, limited common areas and facilities and independent areas, and for its provisions in the declaration is subject to decision by the competent authority as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 2011. The failure to submit the declaration and its enclosure with the deed of transfer and its non-registration will disentitle the promoter from claiming common areas and facilities in the property in which the apartments are built to be limited common areas and facilities or independent areas.

(9)    The association of apartment owners is to be registered by the Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Societies Registration Act as amended in the State of U.P. If bye-laws are inconformity with the model byelaws as notified on 16.11.2011, the Registrar/Deputy Registrar/Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register association on the ground that it contains less than minimum number of members of the society under the Societies Registration Act or that it does not comply with any of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act as amended in the State of U.P. The registration of the association is in compliance with the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 and model bye-laws. It shall be the joint responsibility of the promoter and apartment owners to obtain the registration. The Registrar/Deputy Registrar/Sub Registrar shall not refuse to register the association, if the promoter does not join even after one month's notice given by the apartment owners or 33% of the apartment owners, whichever is more. It is clarified that the completion of all infrastructure services and completion certificate from local authority will not be a ground to deny the registration, as the issuance of completion certificate depends on the steps to be taken by the promoter. The delay caused by him in obtaining such certificate will defeat the object of formation of the society and the enforcement of the rights and liabilities of the promoter and the apartment owners. In such case the society will be registered provisionally under the certificate to be given by the competent authority as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Act, who will give a time period to the promoter to provide all infrastructure services and to obtain completion certificate, failing which the promoter will invite the punishment for the offence as prescribed under Section 25 of the Act including the punishment of imprisonment under Section 25(1) of the Act.

(10)The 'competent authority' within the meaning of Rule 2(c) as defined will include Vice Chairman of the Development Authority in whose notified development area the building is situate or the Collector of the district, where no such development authority exists. In case of the Industrial Development Authority the competent authority shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Industrial Development Authority. For the purposes of discharging functions and duties and resolving the disputes the competent authority will be entitled to delegate its powers to an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary including Legal Advisor of the authority and any Sub Divisional Magistrate of the district in case of a district. The competent authority shall set up mediation and conciliation centres in each authority, or the district, which will resolve to mediate the disputes at the first instance between the disputing parties.

(11)Any dispute raised before the competent authority shall be decided by the competent authority or delegatee as provided above or his delegatee as provided above, to be decided by the officer notified by the State Government under Section 27(2) and (3) of the Act, before it is brought before the Court of law.

(12)The competent authority will also be entitled to verify the contents of the declaration under Section 12 of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and to decide any question, which may arise out of such declaration.

(13)The model byelaws as notified on 16.11.2011 under sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, if not approved and appended to the application for registration, made prior to the enforcement of the Act shall be adopted in the first meeting of the association of apartment owners and will be registered by the Registrar. Any amendment in the model bye-laws will be made in accordance with the Bye Law 58 of the Model Bye-laws to be approved by the owners representing atleast 2/3rd of the total number of units in the building with the prior approval of the competent authority and will thereafter be registered by the Registrar of Societies without insisting upon complying with the provisions of any other Act including Societies Registration Act as amended in the State of U.P. No alteration in the declaration given by the promoter under Section 12 shall be permitted except in accordance with the Act and for which the approval of the development authority or regulating authority in which such property is situate will be necessary and thereafter with the approval of the association of apartment owners by resolution passed by the apartment owners in which vote of promoter shall not be counted. The development authority or regulating authority may in such case demand a NOC from the apartment owners before allowing any alteration in the building plans as a condition for granting approval.

(14)The FAR or any additional FAR is a property, appended to rights in the property on which the building is constructed, and is thus a property in which the apartment owners have interest by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010. The purchase of additional FAR is not permissible to be appropriate by the promoter without any common benefits to the apartment owners. The consent of the apartment owners obtained by resolution in the meeting of the apartment owners by majority will be necessary for purchasing additional FAR. Its utilization will also be subject to the consent of the apartment owners.


M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Others (14.11.2013 - ALLHC) : MANU/UP/1765/2013

Saturday, January 27, 2018

https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/186632-quot-forwarding-cpio-quot-punished-if-there.html#.WmyAOlLj7D0.twitter

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Leading case law in respect of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief

The result of this discussion is that:
(a) No Evidence Affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC can be allowed to be 'withdrawn'. It is evidence as soon as it is affirmed.
(b) The Evidence Affidavit cannot contain matter that is irrelevant, inadmissible or both; or is in the nature of arguments, submissions or prayers. This is not 'evidence' as required by law. Were it to be attempted from the witness box, it would not be permitted; and hence it cannot be allowed to creep in merely because it happens to be placed on affidavit.

(c) It is permissible, and in fact often necessary, for a Court, with a view to expedition and to avoid a needlessly protracted cross-examination on irrelevancies and matter that is not 'evidence' to order that any such material that does not constitute evidence be struck off or be ordered or directed to be ignored without fear of adverse consequence.
(d) Where an Evidence Affidavit is filed and the witness or deponent, though otherwise available, is not made available for cross-examination, the well-established consequences in law will follow. Specifically, the opposite party will be entitled to submit that an adverse inference be drawn against such a witness or the party who fails to produce that witness for cross- examination; and, further, that should that evidence contain any admissions, these may be used by the other party; but so much of the evidence as is against the party entitled to cross-examination but which has gone untested for want of production of the witness will be liable to be ignored.

Bombay High Court

Banganga Co-Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd vs Mrs.Vasanti Gajanan Nerurkar on 15 June, 2015
Bench: G.S. Patel
Citation; AIR 2015(NOC)1132 Bom

http://www.lawweb.in/2015/10/leading-case-law-in-respect-of.html

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,_Turmoil over common areas in Condominium

Demolition of allegedly unauthorised shops put up by the residents' association in Heritage City, Gurgaon cloaks the more important issue: who should own common areas in group housing complexes in the state? This is a matter of contention between the builders and many of the housing societies in Gurgaon. The government's response to all such disputes is either to brush them under the carpet, or side with the developers while taking full advantage of the weaknesses in the legislation.

The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act (HAOA) was passed to give the residents of housing complexes in the state the right and the wherewithal to administer the colonies through their elected representatives. The spirit of the Act requires that once the area has been handed over to the owners' body, all common areas and facilities, too, should be transferred to them. That the law says as well. But in a clever twist of legalese it leaves it to the builder to declare in the declaration he files under the Act what constitutes 'common areas'.

In the broad scheme of the HAOA, only three kinds of properties are mentioned as components of any gated colony: general common areas, limited common areas and private residences. Whatever facilities - be it shops, club, school or any other - which the builders try to hold on to, or sell or lease to private parties, would be classified as private commercial properties and there is no provision for them in the law. This is a point made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in their judgment in the Silver Oaks case.

That verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013. The apex court had two important observations to make. One, that the licensed area in which the group housing complex known as Silver Oaks is located also has plotted areas of DLF I in it, hence the residential society of this complex alone cannot take control of all common facilities. The court said: "The colonizer could not have included the community and commercial facilities (in the declaration) because the same is meant for the benefit of the entire colony, which takes in plotted area and the group housing society's area as well." Logically it means that residents of plotted areas outside too can avail of the common facilities in the gated complex! In any case this situation is a rarity.

Second, the court said that the statute has given a discretion to the colonizer to include whatever facilities he desired in the common list because they were built by him 'at his own cost' so he could do what he liked with them. If this means that the cost of constructing these facilities was not added to the selling price of the apartments, not enough evidence was produced before the court to establish this. And even if it is correct in accounting terms, it is contrary to the spirit of the law.

Unfortunately, the building sector is not known for transparency of its accounts. But the government can still set up a mechanism by which the correct cost of building these structures can be ascertained and the apartment owners' associations given the option of buying them off. And for the future, the law must be amended unequivocally to give societies of apartment owners full control over all facilities. If that means that developers will load the cost of constructing them on the buyers (which they may have done in the past, too, but keep this fact cleverly hidden), so be it. At least this matter will be removed from the list of contentious issues that bedevil the realty sector.

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/gurgaon/turmoil-over-common-areas-in-condominium/articleshow/61921715.cms

Friday, December 1, 2017

NCDRC_deemed to have condoned the default

NCDRC has recently delivered judgment dated 21-11-2017 in CC No. 1730 OF 2016 tilted as PRAVEEN @ PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR v/s  EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. & ANR by adopting “deemed condoned theory” against the builder instead of customer. Below is the relevant Para of the judgement:  

5.   As regards, the alleged default on the part of the complainant, it would be seen form the payment plan agreed between the parties that 65% of the BSP was required to be paid by the start of 4th floor work.  The (viii) installment was payable at the start of the 7th floor work, (ix) installment was payable at the start of 10th floor (x) installment was payable at the start of 12th floor work.  The complainant made last payment in July, 2015, as would be evident from the Sales Customer Ledger of the opposite party.  He paid more than 65% of the Basic Sale Price by that date.  There is no evidence or even an allegation that 7th floor work had already started by the time last payment was made by the complainant.  The written version filed by the opposite party does not show when the 7th floor work, 10th floor work and 12th floor work started.  It is also not known whether the aforesaid work started before filing of this complaint or after filing of this complaint.  In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, and the proof thereof, the complainant cannot be said to be a defaulter in payment of viii, ix and x installments.  In any case, if the complainant was in default in making payment, the opposite party ought to have cancelled his installment and could even have forfeit the Earnest Money as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers agreement.  That having not been done, the opposite party is deemed to have condoned the aforesaid default.  Consequently, the relief sought by the complainant cannot be denied on account of the aforesaid alleged defaults.





NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 1730 OF 2016


1. PRAVEEN @ PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
E-184, 2ND FLOOR, NARAINA VIHAR, OPPOSITE GYAN MANDIR PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEW DELHI-110028
2. .
.
.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus

1. EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. & ANR.
(THROUGH ITS MD) B-100, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1,
DELHI-110028
2. EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.
EARTH COPIA, SECTOR 112, GURGAON, HARYANA.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate
Ms. Prerna Chopra, Advocate
Mr. Viren Kapur, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Himanshu, Advocate for
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate

Dated : 21 Nov 2017
ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)     


The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely ‘Earth Copia’, which the opposite party was to develop in Sector-112 of Gurgaon.  The opposite party allotted residential Unit No.404 in Tower G having super area of 1835 sq. ft. to him for a consideration of Rs.81,78,580/-.  The complainants having opted for a construction linked payment plan, the aforesaid amount was payable in the following manner:      
  1. At the time of booking : 10% of the BSP
(ii)      Within 45 days from booking : 15% of the BSP
  1. Within 120 days from booking : 10% of the BSP plus 50% of   the EDC and IDC



  1. At start of Excavation Work : 10% of the BSP
  1. At start of Basement Slab : 10% of the BSP plus 50% of the EDC and IDC
  1. At start of 2nd floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start of 04th floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start of 07th floor work : 5% of the BSP plus 50% of  3rd and 4th floor PLC plus 50% of Park Facing PLC plus 50% of road / corner facing PLC
  1. At start of 10th floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start 12th floor work: 5% of BSP
  1. At the start of 14th Floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start of Internal Plaster : 5% of the BSP plus 50% of 3rd and 4th floor PLC plus 50% of Park Facing PLC plus 50% of road / corner facing PLC
  1. On laying of flooring : 5% of the BSP
  1. On offer of Possession : 5% plus 100% of ECC plus 100% of IFMS plus 100% of EEC and FFC plus 100% of Power back-up charges”.
2.      The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.58,74,142.00 to the opposite party in installments, the last payment having been made on 25.7.2015. The possession as per the buyers agreement dated 31.05.2012 was to be delivered within three years from the execution of the said agreement, though the opposite party was allowed a grace period of six months.  Thus, including the grace period, the possession ought to have been delivered by 30.11.2015.  The grievance of the complainant is that despite they having paid a sum of Rs.58,74,142.00 to the opposite party, the construction of the flat allotted to him is not even complete.  The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the entire amount paid along with compensation the form of simple of interest.
3.      The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has taken a preliminary objection that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is also alleged that the complainant has defaulted in making payment in terms of the payment plan agreed by him since 80% of the sale consideration has become due from him.  It is further stated in the reply to the complaint that the construction has already reached upto 12th floor.  It is however, not disputed that the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant is not complete, though the learned counsel for the opposite party states that the construction is likely to be completed by April, 2018.  He further states that the Directors of the opposite party are already in custody.
4.      In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, where the value of the goods or services, as the case may, and the compensation, if any, claimed by the complainants exceeds Rupees one crore.  As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such cases means, the aggregate consideration agreed to be paid by the buyer to the builder.  Therefore, the agreed sale consideration in this case, being Rs.81,78,580/-, the aforesaid would be value of the services hired or availed by the complainant.  If compensation claimed by the complainant is added to the aforesaid amount, the aggregate comes to more than Rupees one crore.  This Commission therefore possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
5.      As regards, the alleged default on the part of the complainant, it would be seen form the payment plan agreed between the parties that 65% of the BSP was required to be paid by the start of 4th floor work.  The (viii) installment was payable at the start of the 7th floor work, (ix) installment was payable at the start of 10th floor (x) installment was payable at the start of 12th floor work.  The complainant made last payment in July, 2015, as would be evident from the Sales Customer Ledger of the opposite party.  He paid more than 65% of the Basic Sale Price by that date.  There is no evidence or even an allegation that 7th floor work had already started by the time last payment was made by the complainant.  The written version filed by the opposite party does not show when the 7th floor work, 10th floor work and 12th floor work started.  It is also not known whether the aforesaid work started before filing of this complaint or after filing of this complaint.  In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, and the proof thereof, the complainant cannot be said to be a defaulter in payment of viii, ix and x installments.  In any case, if the complainant was in default in making payment, the opposite party ought to have cancelled his installment and could even have forfeit the Earnest Money as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers agreement.  That having not been done, the opposite party is deemed to have condoned the aforesaid default.  Consequently, the relief sought by the complainant cannot be denied on account of the aforesaid alleged defaults.
6.      It is an admitted position that the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant is not complete even till date, though more than two years have already expired from the time period stipulated for completing the said construction.  The complainant therefore cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat allotted to him.  This is more so, considering the situation where even the Directors of the builder company are said to be in judicial custody.  The complainants therefore are entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by them along with appropriate compensation.
7.      The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions from one of the complainants, who is present in the Court, that though the complainants have claimed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 24% per annum, they in order to avoid further litigation in the matter are restricting their claim to refund of the principal amount paid by them along with compensation in the form interest @ 10% per annum and the cost of litigation.
8.      The complaint is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i)      The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.58,74,142.00 received from the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount long with compensation in the form of simple interest is refunded.
(ii)      The opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants
(iii)     The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.
         


......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER


Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Section 12 (1) (c) of CP Act_Meaning of same interest_different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years

Below is the judgment of NCDRC wherein the Hon’ble Commission said  “…In the case in hand, different complainants have booked their apartments/ units for different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years.  In such circumstances, it cannot be held that each complainant has got same interest on same terms & conditions………”



NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 656 OF 2015


1. ANKUR GOSWAMI & 13 ORS.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus

1. SUPERTECH LIMITED & ANR.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Shri Kumar Dushyant Singh &
Shri Shravan Kumar Yammanur,
Advocates.

For the Opp.Party :

Dated : 05 May 2016
ORDER
Pronounced on   5th May, 2016

ORDER

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
          This complaint has been filed by 14 complainants against opposite party alongwith application under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.
          Brief facts of the case are that complainants are buyers/allottees/ owners/ consumers who have booked/purchased apartments/units in opposite party project after making initial payments.  Complaint has been filed through complainant No. 1 to act as representative on behalf of all the complainants having same interest.  It was further submitted that complainants booked area between 1550 sq. ft. to 2385 sq. ft. @ Rs. 2905/- to Rs. 5,384/-.  Complainants have made major payment as mentioned in the complaint and have paid more than Rs. 5.00 crores.  Allotment of apartments was made in the year 2011-2013 but still possession has not been handed over though grace period for possession has also elapsed.  As per agreement, opposite party is liable to pay penalty of Rs. 5.00/sq. ft./pm to the complainants.  Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed complaint for direction to opposite party to complete construction of apartments/units and hand over possession to the complainants and further pay interest @ 24% p.a. on total amount paid Rs.5,20,55,098/- and further to pay escalation charges and compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to each of the complainants towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1.00 lakh as cost of litigation to each of the complainants.
          Heard Learned Counsel for the complainant for admission purposes and perused record.
          Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that as complainants are having same interest on the same terms and conditions, complaint under Section 12 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable.
          Perusal of record reveals that complainant No. 1 booked apartment for a sum of Rs. 1,14,89,935/- against which he has made payment of Rs. 96,38,647/-.  As far other apartments of other complainants are concerned, they are ranging from Rs. 38.00 lakhs to Rs. 76.00 lakhs.  Admittedly, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaints only if value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore.  Value of goods alongwith compensation claimed by Complainant No. 2 to 14 does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and in such circumstances, their complaints are not maintainable before this Commission and they are supposed to file their complaints before appropriate State Commission.  Had complainant Nos. 2 to 14 filed complaints separately, they could not have been entertained by this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Under the garb of Section 12 (1) (c) or Section 13 (6) of Consumer Protection Act which are primarily meant for common services, e.g., facility of lift, deficiency in maintaining common areas or common facilities, complaints are not maintainable before this Commission merely because complainant No. 1’s complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
          Learned Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Complaint No. 282 of 2012- Dewan Ashwani & Ors.  Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.; in which complaint comprising many complaints was allowed as each complainant has got same interest on same terms & conditions though value of their apartments were ranging from Rs. 55.00 lakhs to Rs. 67.00 lakhs.  It was further submitted by him that SLP filed by opposite party was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court.  Perusal of order of Hon’ble Apex Court reveals that appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that order of this Commission was upheld on merits.  In the case in hand, different complainants have booked their apartments/ units for different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years.  In such circumstances, it cannot be held that each complainant has got same interest on same terms & conditions and we do not agree with law laid down by coordinate bench in Dewan Ashwani’s case (supra).
          Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that if two coordinate benches differ in their opinion, matter is to be referred to larger bench as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in 2015 (319) ELT622 (SC)- Commnr. of Customs and Central Excise  Vs. Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.;  in which it was held that if two coordinate benches in two cases render conflicting opinion, the only course of action open for Tribunal is to refer matter to larger Bench.  The aforesaid case is not applicable    as there is no conflicting judgment of other Bench rather this Bench is taking different view from the view taken by other coordinate Bench in Dewan Ashwani’s case (supra).  In such circumstances, matter is not required to be referred to larger Bench.
          Only complainant No.1’s case falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and complaints of other complainant Nos. 2 to 14 are not maintainable before this Commission and merely by moving application under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, complaints filed by other complainants are not maintainable before this Commission.  In such circumstances, only the complaint filed by complainant No. 1 pertaining to his apartment is maintainable before this Commission and complaint is dismissed for mis-joinder of parties with liberty to complainant No. 1 to file fresh complaint.  Liberty is also granted to other complainants to move to appropriate Forum for relief, if they so desire.
                                                                                                -sd/-


......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
PREM NARAIN
MEMBER