Introduction

The case of Vikram Singh Grover v. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was adjudicated by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh on February 28, 2020. This case consolidates two consumer complaints (No. 94 of 2019 and No. 108 of 2019) filed by buyers who invested in the real estate project "Palm Garden" in Mullanpur, New Chandigarh. The complainants alleged unfair trade practices, negligence, and deficiency in service due to significant delays in the allotment and possession of plots, lack of execution of agreements, and the project's commencement without necessary regulatory approvals.

Summary of the Judgment

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission evaluated the grievances of two sets of buyers against M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The primary issues revolved around non-delivery of plot allotment despite payments, absence of executed agreements, and the initiation of the project without requisite approvals. The Commission found the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service, negligence, and adoption of unfair trade practices. Consequently, it ordered the opposite parties to refund the paid amounts along with interest at 12% per annum and additional compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key cases that influenced its decision:

• Kavit Ahuja v. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 - Established that plot buyers are considered consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• Omaxe Limited and anr. Vs. Dr. Ambuj Chaudhary (2012) CPJ 4 (SC) - Affirmed that housing transactions fall within the definition of 'service' under the Act.
• Suwagata Rena Kulshrestha vs. Rohit Sarogi (2023) - Reinforced the interplay between RERA and Consumer Forums, ensuring that RERA does not extinguish consumer rights.
• Various national and Supreme Court judgments were also cited to underline principles regarding refunds, interest rates, and obligations of builders.

Legal Reasoning

The Commission meticulously dissected the objections raised by the opposite parties concerning jurisdiction, consumer definition, and applicability of new legislations like RERA. Key points in the legal reasoning included:

• Jurisdiction: Affirmed that the Commission had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction despite the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the new regulations were not yet finalized.
• Definition of Consumer: Determined that plot buyers are indeed consumers since their primary intent was purchasing plots for personal use and investment, aligning with precedent rulings.
• RERA and PAPR Acts: Clarified that registration under RERA does not negate the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Additionally, exemption under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (PAPR Act) did not absolve the builder from existing legal obligations at the time of project initiation.
• Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practices: Highlighted that delayed allotment and lack of agreement execution constituted a breach under Section 6(1) of the PAPR Act, marking it as unfair and negligent conduct.
• Interest and Compensation: Based on established legal principles and case law, the Commission awarded 12% interest per annum on the refunded amount and additional compensation for mental distress.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the protective measures available to consumers in the real estate sector. It underscores the accountability of builders in adhering to legal protocols and emphasizes that new legislations like RERA coexist with existing consumer protection laws rather than replacing them. Future implications include:

• Empowerment of buyers to seek redressal for delayed possession and unexecuted agreements.
• Builders being more cautious in project initiation, ensuring all regulatory approvals are in place beforehand.
• Clarification on jurisdictional overlap between RERA and Consumer Fora, ensuring consumers have multiple avenues for redressal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vs. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 laid the foundational framework for consumer rights in India. The 2019 amendment introduced new provisions and authorities but, as per this judgment, does not override unresolved jurisdictions of the existing Act until new regulations are formally enacted.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)

RERA was introduced to bring transparency and efficiency to the real estate sector. However, this judgment clarifies that RERA registration does not eliminate the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act for issues like deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Deficiency in Service

This refers to the failure to provide agreed-upon services or products. In this case, the failure to allot plots and execute agreements constituted a deficiency in service.

Unfair Trade Practice

Any deceptive or unethical practice by sellers or service providers that adversely affects consumers. Collecting money without executing agreements or delivering promised plots is deemed unfair.

Conclusion

The judgment in Vikram Singh Grover v. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. serves as a pivotal reference for consumer rights in real estate transactions. By holding builders accountable for delays, non-execution of agreements, and failure to secure necessary approvals, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reinforces the legal safeguards available to consumers. This case exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice for aggrieved buyers, thereby fostering trust and integrity in the real estate market.