State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Taneja & Anr. vs Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. on 13 April, 2021
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RESERVED ON: 18.02.2021
PRONOUNCED ON: 13.04.2021
COMPLAINT NO. 1473/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
RAKESH TANEJA & ANR. ...... COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
WAVE MEGACITY PVT. LTD. ......OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
Present: COMPLAINANT IN PERSON
Mr.RINKU MATHUR, Counsel for the OPPOSITE PARTY.
PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
[Via Video Conferencing]
1.The present complaint has been filed before this commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of services by the opposite party, wherein the complainants have prayed as under:
A. To allow the instant complaint B. Pass an award in favour of the Complainants thus directing the Opposite Party to pay Rupees 52,91,243 (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two CC 1473/2016 Page 1 of 19 Hundred Forty Three Only) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the present complaint and up to the date of actual release of payment by Bank Transfer/NEFT on account of refund of the moneys paid by the Complainants towards the cost of the Unit no. 4118 - Wave Business Tower- I- Wave City Center- NOIDA and interest thereupon, compensation for deficient service, loss of opportunity, mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant besides cost of litigation;
C. Pass any other appropriate order, award or direction either in alternative or in addition as may be deemed just and proper in the interests of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite Party.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainants booked an Office Space bearing Unit No. 4118 on 41st Floor in Wave Business Tower-I located at Wave City Center, Noida. The Complainants and the Opposite Party entered into Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement on 04.10.2012. The terms of the aforesaid arrangement stipulated that the Opposite Party was to handover the Possession within 48 months with a further grace period of 6 months.
3. The Basic sale price of the aforesaid office space unit was Rs.
59,56,104.00/- exclusive of service tax. The complainants opted for Construction linked payment plan which has been reproduced as follows:-
S.No. Payable on Basic Sale Amount Service Tax Price
1. On 10% Rs. Rs. 18,404.36/-
Booking 5,95,610.40/- CC 1473/2016 Page 2 of 19 2. Within 90 10% Rs. Rs. 18,404.36/- days of 5,95,610.40/- booking 3. Within 150 10% Rs. Rs. 18,404.36/- days of 5,95,610.40/- booking 4. On laying 5% + 50% Rs. 2,97,805.20 Rs. 9,202.18/- of of Car + Rs. 2,25,000 Foundation parking = Rs. Slab charges 5,22,805.2 5. On Ground 5% + 50% Rs. 2,97,805.20 Rs. 9,202.18/- Floor Slab of Car + Rs. 2,25,000 parking = Rs. charges 5,22,805.2 6. On Fourth 5% + 25% Rs. 2,97,805.20 Rs. 9, 202.18 + Floor Slab of Club + Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 6,180 = Membership Rs. 3,47,805.20 Rs. 15,382.18 7. On Eight 5% + 25% Rs. 2,97,805.20 Rs. 9, 202.18 + Floor Slab of Club + Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 6,180 = Membership Rs. 3,47,805.20 Rs. 15,382.18 8. On Twelfth 5% + 25% Rs. 2,97,805.20 Rs. 9, 202.18 + Floor Slab of Club + Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 6,180 = Membership Rs. 3,47,805.20 Rs. 15,382.18 9. On 5% + 25% Rs. 2,97,805.20 Rs. 9, 202.18 + Sixteenth of Club + Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 6,180 = Floor Slab Membership Rs. 3,47,805.20 Rs. 15,382.18 10. On 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Twentieth 2,97,805.20/- CC 1473/2016 Page 3 of 19 Floor Slab 11. On Twenty 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Fourth 2,97,805.20/- Floor Slab 12. On Twenty 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Eight Floor 2,97,805.20/- Slab 13. On Thirty 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Second 2,97,805.20/- Floor Slab 14. On Thirty 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Fifth Floor 2,97,805.20/- Slab 15. On Top 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Floor Slab 2,97,805.20/- 16. On 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- Completion 2,97,805.20/- of Brick Work 17. On Offer of 5% Rs. Rs. 9,202.18/- possession. 2,97,805.20/- Rs. Rs. 66,06,104.00/- 2,08,763.61/- TOTAL Rs. 68,14,867.61/-
4. The above mentioned payment plan envisages the basic sale price payable, Car parking charges, Club membership charges and along with the service tax applicable, amounting to Rs. 68,14,867.61/-.CC 1473/2016 Page 4 of 19
5. The complainants made timely payments towards the aforesaid office space as and when demanded by the Opposite Party. The Complainants inquired through emails regarding the payment of the subsequent installments from the Opposite party as per the construction linked payment plan. The Opposite Party reverted to the query of the complainants vide email dated 02.08.2016 informing the Complainants that the construction of the Basement was in progress.
6. Aggrieved by the delay in construction, the Complainants wrote another email dated 04.10.2016 stating that as per the terms of the arrangement, the period for delivery had already lapsed and there was no iota of doubt that the construction would not be completed within the grace period of 6 months as provided in the arrangement. The Opposite Party failed to revert to the said email.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the Complainants visited the office of the Opposite Party on 15.10.2016, wherein the Complainants were informed that the project would be ready and the possession shall be offered anytime before early 2020.
8. The Complainants then got served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party dated 19.10.2016 for refund of the amount paid towards the office space in the Opposite Party's project. The Opposite Party reverted to the aforesaid legal notice stating that the possession was to be offered after the expiry of the grace period of 6 months i.e. on or before 04.04.2017, which is yet to come and the obligation of the Opposite Party will be duly complied for.
9. The Complainants, dissatisfied with the reply of the Opposite Party, approached this commission alleging deficiency of services on account of laxity in carrying out the construction within the stipulated time period as per the Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement.CC 1473/2016 Page 5 of 19
10. During the course of the proceedings, notice was issued to the Opposite Party and the written statement was filed in due course. In its written statement, the Opposite Party has contended that (a) the Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint ; (b) the property has been purchased for commercial purpose, hence the complainants are not consumers within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; (c) the complaint is premature, given the fact that the grace period expires on 04.04.2017 whereas the complaint has been filed on 07.12.2016 ; (d) and that there is no deficiency on part of OP. The Complainants filed their rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the Opposite Party and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Thereafter, the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit to prove their averments on record and their written arguments.
11. It is the case of the Complainants that despite making the timely payments for the commercial space in the Opposite Party's project, the Opposite party failed to handover the actual physical possession of the said commercial space within the time period as stipulated in the Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement.
12. We have heard the counsel for the Complainants as well as the counsel for the Opposite Party and perused through the material on record.
13. The fact that the Complainants had booked an office space with the Opposite Party is not in dispute from the evidence on record. Payment to the extent of Rs. 25,32,044/- as on 19.10.2016 was made by the Complainants to the Opposite party which is evident from the receipts attached with the complaint.CC 1473/2016 Page 6 of 19
14. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate preliminary issues of law as to the maintainability of the consumer complaint.
WHETHER THIS COMMISSION HAS THE TERRTITORIAL JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT COMPLAINT?
15. The issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction in case of a consumer complaint has been dealt with by this commission in a series of judgments wherein it has been held that this Commission is empowered to entertain a consumer complaint against a person/company whose Registered Office is situated within the territory of NCT of Delhi. (Reference: CC-1375/2016 titled Mr. Raghavendra Rengaswamy vs. M/s ORS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd decided on 25.03.2021, CC-621/2016 titled Abhaya Srivastava & Anr. vs. M/s Supertech Ltd. decided on 09.03.2021).
16. In the present case, the registered office of the Opposite Party is at Mezzanine Floor , M-4, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi-110049, which falls within the territory of Delhi, hence, this commission is not paralyzed from entertaining the present consumer complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.
WHETHER THE COMPLAINT IS PREMATURE?
17. The Counsel for the Opposite Party has contended that the complaint has been filed without any cause of action and is premature given the fact that the time stipulated as per the Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement was yet to expire at the time of filing of the complaint.
18. The Complainants entered into a Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement dated 04.10.2012, wherein Clause 5.1 of the arrangement stipulated that the Opposite Party was to handover the possession of the Office Space within 48 months wherein, a grace CC 1473/2016 Page 7 of 19 period of 6 months was also allowed, which was to expire on 04.04.2017.
19. However, the complainants were informed by the Opposite Party vide email dated 02.08.2016 that the Basement work was in progress. On the expiry of 48 months, i.e. in October, 2016, the Complainants personally visited the project site wherein they observed that the project was nowhere near completion. The Complainants then filed this complaint before this commission on 07.12.2016 i.e. after expiry of 48 months stipulated in the Space Allottee(s) Arrangement.
20. The perusal of record reflects that the Opposite Party filed the written statement on 31.08.2017 i.e.after the grace period had already expired and took the stand that the clause 5.1 has been misinterpreted by the complainants as the delivery of the office space was to be done within 54 months and not 48 months after the arrangement was entered between the parties. The Opposite Party has alleged that the complainants failed to take into consideration that a grace period of 6 months was also provided in the same clause i.e. clause 5.1 and has filed the complaint prematurely.
21. The Opposite Party has repeatedly averred the same statement in their written statement that the complainants failed to take into consideration the grace period of 6 months and that the complaint has been filed prematurely.
22. Considering the fact that the grace period had not expired at the time of filing of the complaint, the Opposite Party has not once averred that the construction of the aforesaid office space is complete and they are ready to handover possession.
23. The complainants approached the commission only after taking into consideration the slow progress made at the construction site and there CC 1473/2016 Page 8 of 19 being very less possibility of the construction to be completed within the stipulated time, even after expiry of 48 months.
24. Based on the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainants are within their right to file the present complaint as the possession of office space which was to be delivered to them within 54 months has still not been offered by the Opposite Party as is evident from the written statement filed and the cause of action subsists in the favour of the Complainants.
COMPLAINANTS- CONSUMERS OR NOT?
25. The counsel for Opposite Party has contended that the Complainants are not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. The counsel for Opposite Party has alleged that the Complainants have booked the said property for Commercial Purpose.
26. This aspect as to what constitutes "Commercial Purpose" has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers and Ors. reported at (2020) 2 SCC 265. The relevant portion has been reproduced as under:
12. In Laxmi Engg. [Laxmi Engg. Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583] , which is one of the leading authorities on this point, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elucidated upon the meaning of "commercial purpose" as follows: (SCC pp. 591-92, paras 10-11) "10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the quasi-judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by the Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are not courts though invested with some of the powers of a civil court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals CC 1473/2016 Page 9 of 19 brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. ... The idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest.
The Act provides for "business-to-consumer"
disputes and not for "business-to-business"
disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal.
11. ... Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression "commercial purpose". It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. "Commercial" denotes "pertaining to commerce" (Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means "connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim"
(Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word "commerce" means "financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods 'with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit' he will not be a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. ... The Explanation reduces the question, what is a "commercial purpose", to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the Explanation viz. "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self- employment" make the intention of Parliament CC 1473/2016 Page 10 of 19 abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood."
(emphasis supplied)
13. In the aforementioned discussion in Laxmi Engg. [Laxmi Engg. Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583] , this Court relied upon Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. [Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3 : (1991) 1 CPJ 499] In Synco Textiles [Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3 : (1991) 1 CPJ 499] , a four- Member Bench of the National Commission headed by V. Balakrishna Eradi, J., expounded upon the meaning of the term "commercial purpose", prior to the insertion of the Explanation clause to Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act: (Synco Textiles case [Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3 : (1991) 1 CPJ 499] , SCC OnLine NCDRC paras 5-6 & 8) "5. ...The words "for any commercial purpose"
are wide enough to take in all cases where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit....
6. Going by the plain dictionary meaning of the words used in the definition section the intention of Parliament must be understood to be to exclude from the scope of the expression "consumer" any person who buys goods for the purpose of their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purpose of making profit. ... It is obvious that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. In order that exclusion clause should apply it is however necessary that there should be a close nexus between the CC 1473/2016 Page 11 of 19 transaction of purchase of goods and the large scale activity carried on for earning profit.
8. There is a close and direct nexus between the purpose of purchase of the generating sets and the commercial activity of manufacturing of edible oils for trade carried on by the appellant company, since the generating sets were intended to be used, as and when the need arose, for generating electric current for manufacture of edible oils for the purpose of trade. We do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission that the appellant is not a "consumer"."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, comprising of one of us, in Paramount Digital Colour Lab [Paramount Digital Colour Lab v. AGFA (India) (P) Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 81 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 467] has re-emphasised the importance of there being a "close nexus" between the purpose for which the good or service is availed of and a large-scale profit activity in order to classify such a transaction as commercial in nature, as illustrated below: (Paramount Digital Colour Lab case [Paramount Digital Colour Lab v. AGFA (India) (P) Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 81 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 467] , SCC pp. 85 & 87, paras 12 & 17) "12. ... It is therefore clear, that despite "commercial activity", whether a person would fall within the definition of "consumer" or not would be a question of fact in every case. Such question of fact ought to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.
17. ... Since there is nothing on record to show that they wanted the machine to be installed for a commercial purpose and not exclusively for the purposes of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment, the National Commission was not justified in concluding that the appellants have utilised the services of an operator or a helper to run a commercial CC 1473/2016 Page 12 of 19 venture. One machine does not need many operators or helpers to complete the work entrusted. Since the appellants were two partners, they must have been doing the work on their own, of course, may be with the aid of a helper or an operator. The machine would not have been used in a large-scale profit-making activity but, on the contrary, the appellants purchased the machine for their own utility, personal handling and for their small venture which they had embarked upon to make a livelihood. The same is distinct from large-scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for huge profits. There is no close nexus between the transaction of purchase of the machine and the alleged large-scale activity carried on for earning profit. Since the appellants had got no employment and they were unemployed graduates, that too without finances, it is but natural for them to raise a loan to start the business of photography on a small scale for earning their livelihood."
(emphasis supplied) Therefore this Court in Paramount Digital Colour Lab [Paramount Digital Colour Lab v. AGFA (India) (P) Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 81 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 467] held that the purchase of a machine for the appellants' photography business, which was a small-scale business meant for earning their livelihood, would not be interpreted as being for a "commercial purpose".
15. It is true that the aforementioned decisions were rendered in the context of deciding whether the goods or services availed of in the facts of those cases were for a commercial purpose or exclusively for the purpose of self-employment. This does not mean, however, that in every case a negative test has to be adopted wherein any activity that does not fall within the ambit of "earning livelihood by means of self-employment" would necessarily be for a commercial purpose. We reject Respondent 1's argument in this regard. The CC 1473/2016 Page 13 of 19 Explanation clause to Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act is only clarificatory in nature, as was highlighted by this Court in Laxmi Engg. [Laxmi Engg. Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583] : (SCC p. 594, para 14) "14. Yet another clarification; the Explanation, in our opinion is only explanatory; it is more in the nature of a clarification--a fact which would become evident if one examines the definition (minus the Explanation) in the context and scheme of the enactment. As indicated earlier, the Explanation broadly affirms the decisions of the National Commission. It merely makes explicit what was implicit in the Act. It is not as if the law is changed by the said Explanation; it has been merely made clearer."
Therefore the Explanation clause only re-affirms the definition of "consumer" as it already exists.
16. Ultimately, whether or not a person is a consumer or whether an activity is meant for a commercial purpose will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It may be the case that a person who engages in commercial activities has purchased a good or availed of a service for their personal use and consumption, or for the personal use of a beneficiary, and such purchase is not linked to their ordinary profit-generating activities or for creation of self-employment. Such a person may still claim to be a "consumer." For example, a large corporation may hire the services of a caterer or a 5-star hotel for hosting a function for its employees and their families. If there is any deficiency in service, the service-provider cannot claim that merely because the person availing of the service is a profit- generating entity, and because such transaction does not relate to generation of livelihood through self- employment, they do not fall under the definition of a "consumer". A commercial entity may also be a consumer depending upon the facts of the case. It is not the identity of the person but the purpose for which the transaction is made which is relevant.
*** CC 1473/2016 Page 14 of 19
19. To summarize from the above discussion, though a straight-jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is 'for a commercial purpose':
(19.1) The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, 'commercial purpose' is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to- business transactions between commercial entities. (19.2) The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity. (19.3) The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.
(19.4) If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of 'generating livelihood by means of self- employment' need not be looked into.
(emphasis supplied)"
27. Returning to the facts of the present case, the Complainants in their rejoinder have submitted that the Complainants had booked the Office Space for earning livelihood as the complainant No.1 is a practicing lawyer. A mere bald statement has been made by the Opposite Party that the Complainants purchased the office space for a commercial purpose and on perusal of record before us, we fail to find any material which shows that the Complainants are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling shops/commercial units on a CC 1473/2016 Page 15 of 19 regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such houses. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Whereas, in fact it has been well established that the office space purchased was purchased for self consumption. Consequently the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in negative.
DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE
28. Having discussed the maintainability of the present complaint, the question left to adjudicate is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the complainants. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at (2020) 16 SCC 512, wherein it has been held as follows:
"28. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers CC 1473/2016 Page 16 of 19 suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfillment of a contractual obligation."
29. As per the above dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the builder defaults in handing over of the possession to the consumer within a stipulated time period, it is a clear case of deficiency of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Returning to the facts of the present case, the record reflects that Opposite Party was bound to handover the possession of the flat by 04.04.2017 as per clause 5.1 of the Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement which has been reproduced as under:-
"5.1- Subject to Clause 5.2 and further subject to all the Allottee(s) of the Office Space in the Said project making timely payment, the Developer shall endeavor to complete the development of said project in general and the Office space in particular as far as possible within 49 months along with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of this Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement and/or sanction of building plans, etc. Whichever is later."
30. However, the Opposite Party has failed to handover the possession of the flat within 48 months as stipulated in the Office Space Allottee(s) Arrangement and has not brought on record any documentary evidence to show that the construction was complete within the grace period of 6 months even till the date of filing the present complaint. It is settled law that the complainants cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of the hard earned money which they have spent in order to purchase the property in question.
CC 1473/2016 Page 17 of 19(Ref: Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima reported at (2018) 5 SCC 442).
31. Relying on the above settled law, we are of the view that the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the complainants with respect to the time for delivery of possession of the office space. Moreover, the Opposite Party has failed to handover the possession of the said office space to the complainants within a reasonable time period, thus the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants.
32. Keeping in view the facts of the present, we allow the following reliefs as prayed for by the Complainants:
I. We direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 25 , 32 , 044/- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 13.04.2021 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 30.06.2021;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 30.06.2021, the entire amount is to be refunded with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party - till the actual realization of the amount.CC 1473/2016 Page 18 of 19
II. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is also directed to A. Pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the complainant; B. Pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the litigation costs of pursuing the present complaint.
33. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
34. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
35. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On: 13.04.2021 CC 1473/2016 Page 19 of 19