Neeraj Chowdhary Vs BPTP Ltd. (NCDRC Delhi)
In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, has delivered a judgment in the case of Neeraj Chowdhary Vs BPTP Ltd., bringing relief to a group of home buyers who had been grappling with delays and uncertainties in the completion of their residential project.
The case centered around a project named “Park Sentosa,” situated in village Nimka, Sector-77, Faridabad, by BPTP Ltd., a real estate developer. The project, launched in 2013, promised a modern living experience to its customers, attracting them with alluring advertisements and attractive payment plans. However, as the years passed, concerns began to mount as the construction progress did not match the promises made.
The complainants, led by Neeraj Chowdhary, approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking various reliefs, including refunds, compensation for delays, and relief from mental agony due to the prolonged ordeal.
The Commission’s hearing witnessed arguments from both sides, with Mr. Navneet Kumar representing the complainants and Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma and Ms. Nidhi Tewari representing the opposite parties, BPTP Ltd.
The key issues of contention revolved around the delay in possession of the flats, non-completion of construction even after years of booking, and the alleged unfair trade practices adopted by the developer.
The Commission analyzed the evidence, including allotment dates, payment details, and construction progress, and observed that despite substantial payments by the home buyers, the construction had only reached the basement roof slab level. The promised possession timeline had long expired, leaving the buyers in a state of uncertainty and financial strain. The Commission also noted that the builder had not provided a clear deadline for completion, indicating a lack of intention to finish the project in a reasonable time frame.
The Commission invoked Section 12(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, which permits a complaint to be filed by one or more consumers on behalf of numerous consumers who share the same interest. Despite objections raised against this provision, the Commission upheld the previously granted permission for the complainants to file the complaint collectively.
Ultimately, the Commission ruled in favor of the complainants. It directed BPTP Ltd. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants, along with interest at 9% per annum from the respective deposit dates until the date of payment. The Commission provided a two-month window for the payment to be completed.
This judgment not only offers respite to the complainants but also highlights the significance of consumer protection laws in the real estate sector. It reinforces the responsibility of developers to adhere to promised timelines and deliver what they advertise to their customers. The ruling emphasizes the importance of transparency, fair trade practices, and accountability in the real estate industry, setting a precedent that can potentially impact future property disputes and safeguard the rights of home buyers.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DELHI
1. Heard Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Nidhi Tewari, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Aforementioned complaint has filed for directing the opposite parties (i) to refund each and every buyer, the amount paid by him/her with interest @18% per annum, from respective date of deposit till the date of refund, in respect of the apartment booked by him/her in the project “Park Sentosa”, at village Nimka, Sector-77, tehsil and district Faridabad, (ii) to pay compensation to each and every buyer @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month on ‘super area’, for the period of delay in offering possession of the flats booked by them, (iii) to pay Rs.5/-lacs, to each and every buyers, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) to pay Rs.50000/- to each and every buyers, as cost of litigation, (v) to award benefits of the subvention plan to the complainants, who had opted for the same, (vi) to impose appropriate penalty upon the opposite parties for indulging in unfair trade practice and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The complainants filed IA/6125/2018 under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for grant of permission to file the complaint in representative capacity, which was allowed on 24.10.2018, after hearing the parties. Initially, 14 sets of flat buyers joined as the complainants. After publication of notice, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Mrs. Hemlata Agarwal and Ms. Garima Agarwal (allottees of Flat No.1806) filed IA/6897/2019, for their impleadment as the complainants, which was allowed on 26.04.2019. Mrs. Anju Kheterpal (allottee of Flat No.B-G001) filed A/3675/2020, for her impleadment as the complainant, which was allowed on 16.09.2020. Later on, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Mrs. Hemlata Agarwal and Ms. Garima Agarwal (allottees of Flat No.1806) (complainants-15 to 15-B) settled their claim with the opposite parties, out of court.
4. The complainants stated that the opposite parties were separate companies, incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and have its registered office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. M/s. Countrywide Promoters Private Limited and M/s. Anjali Promoters & Developers Private Limited (opposite parties-2 and 3) owned of 13.187 acres land at village Nimka, Sector-77, tehsil and district Faridabad. They obtained License No.267 of 2007 dated 03.12.2007, from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, for development of township over the aforesaid land. Opposite parties-2 and 3 assigned the work of
development, construction of building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers over the aforesaid land to M/s. BPTP Limited (opposite party-1). The opposite parties launched the project of group housing in the name of “Park Sentosa” over the aforesaid land and gave attractive advertisements in 2012. Basic sale price of a flat of ‘super built up area’ of 1646 sq.ft. was around Rs.8634905/- including other charges. The opposite parties prescribed four payment plans i.e. (i) Construction Linked Payment Plan, (ii) Down Payment Plan, (iii) Subvention Plan and (iv) Self-Funding Payment Plan. Under Subvention Plan, initial 15% of sale price was payable by the buyer, thereafter, 80% of sale price was payable by the HDFC Ltd. by way of loan and remaining 5% of sale price was payable by the buyer at the time of possession. The complainants and other buyers booked the flats in the year 2013-2014. Allotment letters were issued and Flat Buyer’s Agreements were executed during 2013-2014 by the opposite parties in favour of the complainants and other buyers.
5. A chart, giving date of provisional allotment, flat numbers, total sale price and amount paid by the complainants are given below:-
