Case Title: VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Nagendran
Case Number: No. 286/2018
In a recent ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, found VGN Projects Estates accountable for poor service due to the delayed delivery of a booked apartment.
Here’s what happened in a nutshell. The complainant and his spouse signed contracts with VGN Projects Estates, a construction firm, to purchase and build an apartment in a project named “CGN Temple Town”, costing Rs. 2,560,184. After paying the initial deposit, the buyer asked for time to go through the agreements. However, he was reportedly threatened with a penalty if he didn’t sign immediately, thus signing under pressure. The construction was supposed to be finished within 24 months, with a 6-month grace period, but the work was less than halfway done after four and a half years. Despite receiving 95% of the sale amount, the builder demanded the rest of the balance and maintenance charges without completing the project or delivering the flat. The buyer was denied site visits and was treated poorly by security when he attempted to meet officials. Frustrated by the delays and unjust demands, he lodged a complaint with the State Commission, which supported his claim. The builder then appealed to the National Commission.
Arguing their case, the builder claimed that the apartment was ready for occupancy and that the buyer was asked to pay the remaining Rs. 130,053 to get possession, which he failed to do. They attributed the delay in delivering the flat to market conditions, unexpected demand, and the unavailability of construction materials, all of which were beyond their control. The builder also denied preventing any customer from visiting the site and argued that the buyer’s accusations were false, necessitating the dismissal of the complaint.
The Commission, in its analysis, noted that the builder offered possession through an email, which the buyer rejected, citing non-payment of the remaining amount. However, the builder admitted in their written statement that the partial completion certificate was obtained later, indicating that the offer for possession wasn’t valid when made. The builder couldn’t provide proof of obtaining any completion certificate before offering possession. The Commission stressed that possession was due by March 2016, and the partial certificate was only obtained in October 2018. Hence, the State Commission was correct in ordering the builder to refund the money with interest. This ruling concurred with the Supreme Court’s judgement in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) which said that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. However, the Commission found the 18% per annum interest awarded by the State Commission excessive. It cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, which argued against compensation under multiple heads in similar cases.
The Commission partially approved the petition, instructing the builder to refund the entire amount deposited by the buyer with a 9% per annum interest. The builder was also directed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the buyer.
In summary, this judgement highlights the importance of builders adhering to their promised timelines and terms of agreement with buyers. It also signifies that justice can be sought and served through consumer forum channels in case of any discrepancies.
