Consumer fora can grant suitable relief even if it is not sought

Consumer fora can grant suitable relief even if it is not sought in Complaint

(Reproduced from a article in Times of India by Jehangir B Gai)

BPTP Ltd had undertaken a residential project at Faridabad. The

company advertised facilities such as 100% power back-up, club and

swimming pool, fire fighting installations, 24/7 security etc. Pradeep

Sharma booked a 1,414 sq ft flat on September 16, 2009. The agreement

provided that possession would be given latest by November 9, 2012.

Sharma paid Rs 31,22,912 in instalments, which was about 95% of the

cost of the flat. The builder sent a letter dated May 30, 2013 titled

‘demandcum-offer of possession for fitouts’, demanding the final

instalment. The builder also claimed an additional Rs 85,404 toward

increase from 1,414 sq ft to 1,458 sq ft in the super built-up area.

Even though there was no provision in the agreement, the builder

demanded Rs 1,43,038 toward escalation, Rs 40,000 for electric

connection, Rs 1 lakh for power back-up charges, and Rs 2,65,089

toward enhanced EDC charges. The builder also sold parking space to

some of the flat purchasers and even mortgaged the entire property

without the knowledge or consent of the flat purchasers.

Sharma filed a complaint before the Delhi State Commission. The

builder contested the case on merits and also questioned the

maintainability of the case in Delhi since the agreement provided that

all disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in

Faridabad. Overruling these defences, the state commission ordered a

refund of the entire amount along with interest and Rs 50,000 toward

litigation costs.

In appeal, the National Commission, by its order of December 23, 2019,

delivered by Justice R K Agrawal for the bench along with M Shreesha,

pointed out that an agreement cannot oust the jurisdiction conferred

by law. It observed the Delhi state commission had rightly exercised

jurisdiction as the agreement was executed in Delhi and the builder’s

registered office was also in Delhi. The National Commission disagreed

with the builder about inability to obtain the occupation certificate due

to circumstances beyond its control, and attributed it to the failure to

construct the EWS block as provided under the development scheme.

The National Commission noted that even though Sharma had filed the

complaint seeking possession, he did not want a flat anymore and,

instead, wanted a refund along with interest.

It observed consumer fora are empowered to grant suitable relief even

in the absence of a specific prayer. It concluded even though the OC

was subsequently obtained on December 13, 2013, it would not make

any difference as a purchaser cannot be made to wait endlessly for

possession. Hence, it upheld the order of refund along with interest.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in )