Order Name: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vs Ruchi Reality Holdings
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under the stewardship of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, recently ruled that a homebuyer shouldn’t be expected to wait forever to take possession of a flat they’ve fully paid for.
Here’s a quick run-through of the case details. The complainants bought a flat from Ruchi Reality Holdings, making an initial payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, and subsequent payments as asked by the developer, totaling up to Rs. 95,08,517. However, the developer failed to complete the construction and hand over the flat within the promised timeline. The buyers, after several unsuccessful attempts to get satisfactory updates on the project’s progress, finally took the legal route. They accused the developer of poor service and lodged a consumer complaint.
Responding to the complaint, the developer acknowledged the flat’s booking, the agreement, and the receipt of Rs. 10,26,534. They revealed that they had entered into a joint venture with the property owner and had provisional environmental clearance. They also stated that they had constructed four blocks as per the 2010 and 2013 sanctioned plans from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and had obtained completion certificates. However, due to insufficient car parking space, they planned to construct a multi-level car parking facility, for which they applied for a revised sanctioned plan. They also sought to modify the provisional environmental clearance.
Their project, however, faced allegations of violating environmental provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which led to a court-imposed fine. They blamed their inability to complete the project on time on these legal and administrative hurdles, asserting that there was no fault in their services and asked for the complaint to be dismissed.
Upon reviewing the case, the Commission noted that the developer had collected payments despite knowing they lacked the necessary approvals, which was deemed inappropriate. While the developer claimed to have obtained the environmental clearance and a completion certificate later, they only offered possession after the complaint was filed.
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the Commission asserted that it was unjust to make buyers wait indefinitely for possession and ruled in favor of the complainants. The developer’s argument that the complainants were not consumers was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence. The Commission referred to the Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra judgment, which stated that a buyer couldn’t be expected to wait indefinitely for possession.
As a result, the Commission directed the developer to refund Rs.95,08,517 with a 9% interest from the date of respective deposits until realization, along with Rs.50,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
In summary, this ruling emphasizes the rights of consumers and the importance of developers adhering to their commitments. It serves as a reminder that delays due to legal or administrative issues cannot be used as an excuse for indefinite delays in property handovers.
