Order Name: Major (Retd) J S Yadav Vs. Trehan Home Developers Pvt. Ltd
Case No.: F.A. No. 959/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, found Trehan Home Developers responsible for a deficiency in service due to their failure to obtain an occupancy certificate.
Background of the Case
The complainant, a senior citizen, booked a 3BHK flat measuring 1350 sq. ft. in the "HillView Garden Housing Complex" by Trehan Home Developers, paying a booking fee of Rs. 2,50,000. The builder promised to register the flat at a base cost of Rs. 17,95,500 plus additional charges. Later, the builder demanded a third installment of Rs. 2,41,159, including interest for delayed payment. The complainant faced issues when the builder handed over a slightly larger flat (1389 sq. ft.) and demanded extra money for the additional space without prior consent. Furthermore, the builder completed the title conveyance without obtaining the necessary Completion and Occupancy Certificates. The complainant also disputed a Rs. 50,000 charge for covered parking, claiming it was not a common area. Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the State Commission of Rajasthan, which ruled in his favor, instructing the builder to pay Rs. 1,50,000 for failing to provide the required certificates and Rs. 25,000 for legal costs. The complainant then appealed to the National Commission.
Builder’s Arguments
The builder argued that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act because he had requested the property’s title to be transferred to his wife, removing his name from the records. They also highlighted a clause in the agreement stating that the flat’s super area was provisional, requiring the buyer to pay for any increase. The builder maintained that these terms were agreed upon by the complainant and that no unfair trade practice occurred.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission focused on whether the builder was deficient in service. It concluded that the complainant, having paid for the flat, received possession before acquiring the occupancy certificate, despite multiple reminders to the builder. Citing the case of Samruddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., the commission identified a service deficiency due to the absence of the occupancy certificate. Although the flat’s super area increase was permissible under the agreement, charging Rs. 50,000 for covered parking was deemed unfair and constituted a contract breach. The commission referenced DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda, stating that compensating for the same deficiency more than once is not justified.
Decision
The National Commission adjusted the State Commission’s decision, instructing the builder to pay 6% interest on the deposited amount from the possession date until the occupancy certificate is provided. The builder must also refund the Rs. 50,000 parking charge with 6% interest and ensure the occupancy certificate is issued if not already done. The Rs. 1,50,000 compensation was overturned, but the builder was ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 for litigation costs.
Takeaway
This case emphasizes the importance of builders fulfilling their obligations to secure necessary certifications before handing over property possession. It also highlights that consumers can seek redressal for unfair charges or deficiencies in service.
