Order Date: Not Mentioned
Order Name: M/S. Vatika Limited Vs. Dr. Khozem A Divan & Anr.
Case No.: F.A. No. 1581/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, found Vatika Limited guilty of deficient service due to delays in handing over possession after receiving the deposit amount.
Case Summary:
The complainant booked a residential unit in the "Urban Woods" project by Vatika Limited, expecting possession within three years after paying the booking amount and signing an agreement. The unit was to include a modular kitchen and car parking space, with a housing loan facilitated by HDFC Limited. However, Vatika Limited failed to complete the construction on time and did not fulfill the agreed terms, including obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Additionally, the complainant faced unexpected demands and discovered that some promised features, like the car parking space and entry from the Ajmer Express Highway, were not developed.
Frustrated, the complainant approached the State Commission of Rajasthan, which ruled in their favor. The State Commission ordered Vatika Limited to refund the ₹5,71,245 booking amount with 9% interest, pay the housing loan of ₹30,46,643 to HDFC Limited within a month, and awarded ₹5,100 in costs. However, no compensation for mental agony was provided. Both parties then appealed to the National Commission.
Builder’s Arguments:
Vatika Limited argued that the complaint was filed after the limitation period and that the amount claimed was inflated. They also suggested that the matter should go to arbitration and alleged that the complainant defaulted on payments and was not interested in possession. The builder claimed that the project and flats were completed and requested dismissal of the complaint.
National Commission’s Observations:
The National Commission referred to several precedents, including:
- Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devasis Rudra: Held that waiting indefinitely for possession is unreasonable.
- Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan: Confirmed that buyers are entitled to a refund for unreasonable delays.
- Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor: Deemed 9% interest as fair compensation.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda: Stated that multiple compensations for a single deficiency are unjustifiable.
The Commission found that even though the builder argued no Certificate of Occupation was required under local regulations, one was necessary for providing a clear title.
Outcome:
The National Commission directed Vatika Limited to refund the booking amount of ₹5,71,245 to the complainant with 9% annual interest from the date of deposit until payment. They also ordered the builder to settle the housing loan of ₹30,46,643 with HDFC Limited within one month and pay ₹50,000 in litigation costs to the complainant.
Takeaway:
This judgment underscores the importance of timely possession and adherence to agreed terms by builders. Buyers should not endure indefinite delays and are entitled to refunds and fair compensation when their expectations are not met.
