Order Name: Nitin Agarwal Vs. M/S The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Case No.: C.C. No. 344/2013
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, recently ruled that builders are obligated to deliver the facilities they promise in their brochures, according to judicial precedents.
Case Background
The complainants had booked a flat in "Springs I," a high-end residential project by Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited in Mumbai. The project was advertised with luxury amenities such as a wrap-around sun deck, imported fittings, and premium recreational facilities. The complainants paid 20% of the base sale price but noticed discrepancies between the brochure and the contract when signing the agreement. These included unauthorized car parking charges and delays in possession. Although possession was promised by December 2008, it was delayed until January 2012. Additionally, the complainants faced issues related to maintenance charges, unfulfilled promises of amenities, unauthorized construction of additional floors, and improper handling of taxes. Dissatisfied, they filed a complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 2,19,15,561 for the delays, refunds for excess charges, and resolution of these issues.
Defendant’s Arguments
Bombay Dyeing acknowledged the booking, allotment, and sale agreements for the flat and parking spaces but attributed construction delays to external factors like government notices and workers’ agitation. They claimed to have regularly updated the complainants on the progress. Despite the delays, the complainants chose not to seek a refund and took possession in 2012, expressing satisfaction with the flat. The company denied any deficiency in service, coercion, or violation of agreements, arguing that the complaint was time-barred and should be dismissed.
Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is a two-year limitation period for filing complaints. Since the cause of action arose when possession was offered, the complaint filed later was deemed time-barred. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries confirmed that the limitation period starts from the date of the incident, and without an application for condonation of delay, the complaint should be dismissed. The company faced delays due to force majeure events like government orders and workers’ agitation, justifying an extension under the agreement, as supported by the Supreme Court in Dhanrajmal Govindram Vs. Shyamji Kalidas.
The commission found that the company met its obligations concerning the construction of the Club House and charged the required fees as per the agreement. The company also adhered to legal requirements for MVAT payments, and the complainants were informed and asked to inspect the relevant documents, which they did not. The claim for a refund for an alleged excess area was rejected since the agreement clearly stated the carpet area and price, with no excess amount charged. However, the company was found to be obligated to provide certain amenities like a spa, gymnasium, and sports facilities as promised in the brochure, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Final Decision
The National Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing Bombay Dyeing to provide a spa, gymnasium, half basketball court, and badminton court as promised in the brochure.
Takeaway
This judgment underscores the importance of builders adhering to their commitments in brochures and marketing materials. It serves as a reminder to consumers to meticulously review agreements and seek timely legal recourse if discrepancies arise.
