Order Name: M/S. Motia Developers Private Limited vs. Priya Bose Chanda & Anr
Case No.: F.A. No. 74/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has made a significant ruling. They decided that offering a property possession without proper certification is just a "paper possession" and represents a deficiency in service.
Background of the Case
The complainants initially booked a flat with Motia Developers, paying Rs 1,00,000, followed by additional payments totaling Rs 18,69,825. After receiving an allotment letter and signing a Buyer’s Agreement, they paid the full sale amount by June. The following April, the developer asked the complainants to inspect the property and agree on a possession date. However, the developer stopped paying the Rs 33,930 monthly assured return, which was agreed upon earlier. The complainants argued the unit wasn’t complete and requested the return payments to resume. Dissatisfied, they took the issue to the State Commission of Punjab, which ruled in their favor, directing the developer to continue the assured returns with an additional Rs 22,000 for litigation costs. The developer then appealed to the National Commission.
Developer’s Arguments
Motia Developers claimed that the complainants weren’t "consumers" as per the law since they booked the unit for investment, not personal use. They also questioned the State Commission’s jurisdiction and the legitimacy of a joint complaint filed without authorization. Furthermore, they stated they had paid the assured return totaling Rs 3,84,761 up until they offered possession.
National Commission’s Findings
The National Commission supported the State Commission’s decision to dismiss the developer’s objections. According to the Buyer’s Agreement, possession was to be given within 36 months, with an option for a 12-month extension. However, the possession offer was invalid as the construction wasn’t finished. As per Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (PAPRA), the developer hadn’t obtained the necessary Completion and Occupation Certificates. Drawing from precedents like Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Malhotra, the Commission concluded that offering possession without valid certification was merely "paper possession." The Commission referenced other cases, such as Emmar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishan Chander Chandna and Wg Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., to emphasize that possession without proper certification is a deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the National Commission upheld the State Commission’s order, dismissing the developer’s appeal.
Takeaway
This judgment highlights the importance of developers fulfilling all legal requirements before offering possession. Consumers should ensure that they receive valid certifications to avoid falling victim to "paper possession." This case reinforces the consumer’s right to seek redressal if developers fail to comply with the law.
