LAWS(NCD)-2022-6-31

MEENU MEHTA Vs. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD.

Decided On June 23, 2022
Meenu Mehta Appellant
V/S
Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint u/s 21 read with 12 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainants seeking refund of the amount deposited in respect of the flat booked by them with the opposite parties in a project promoted and developed by the opposite parties along with penal interest and other compensation, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of the delay in handing over possession of the flat.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants had booked a flat in the project "The Corridors" promoted and developed by the Opposite parties viz., located at Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 67 A, Gurgaon, Haryana on 8/3/2013 for their residential purpose. An allotment letter was issued by the opposite party to the complainants on 7/8/2013 allotting flat no. CD " C9 " 10 - 1001 in Tower C 9, admeasuring 1300 sq ft in the above said project for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,43,86,083.00. The complainants deposited Rs.1,36,22,162.00 towards this flat by way of several instalments. Thereafter, an Apartment Buyers Agreement was entered into between the complainants and the opposite party on 1/4/2014. As per clause 13.3 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement (in short "the ABA"), the opposite party committed to offer possession of the flat within 42 months with an additional grace period of 180 days from the date of building plan approval, which was obtained on 23/7/2013, failing which compensation at the rate of Rs.7.50 per sq foot was promised by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant thereafter, raised certain objections that the agreement was entirely one-sided and arbitrary, including terms which were not acceptable and never received any substantive reply from the opposite party who refused to change/modify the terms of ABA. Hence, the complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in imposing entirely one sided conditions in the ABA that are in favour of the opposite party which the complainants as consumers were unable to contest. The complainants have sought full refund of the deposited amount and other reliefs as per the following prayer:

(3.) The opposite party has contested the complaint by way of reply and evidence by way of affidavit. The complaint filed before this Commission is stated to be premature as the period of 48 months needs to be calculated with effect from 27/11/2014, the date on which the fire safety scheme was approved. He further states that this Commission has no jurisdiction under the CP Act, 1986 to amend/ modify/ re-write the terms of the agreement. It is averred that the allegations in the complaint are of a contractual nature and as such triable only in a civil court. It is also averred that the complainant is not a consumer since complainants had booked the flat for speculative gains. It has been submitted that under the CP Act 1986 compensation can only be as per Sec. 14 (1) (d) of the CP Act 1986, and that this sec. is not attracted in this case. The OP's case is also that the ABA related to an agreement to sell an apartment by the OP and no "service" was to be rendered within the meaning of Sec. 2 (1) (o) of C P Act, 1986 to the complainant. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service involved.