JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainants in these matters booked one villa each with the opposite party in a project namely Espace Premier, Unitech Nirvana Country-2, Gurgaon. The possession was to be delivered within two years from the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement between the parties. Some of the complainants opted for subvention scheme under which a tripartite agreement was executed between the complainant, the opposite party and ICICI Bank and pursuant to the said agreement, about 95% of the sale consideration was received by the opposite party. The interest for the finance extended by the bank was to be borne by the opposite party for first 18 months and by the concerned buyer thereafter. The remaining complainants opted for construction linked payment plan and have paid varying amounts to the opposite party. The following are the dates of the Buyers Agreements, the sale consideration agreed between the parties, the amount paid to the opposite party and the date by which the possession was to be offered to those buyers:
Date of Amount
Sl. Date of Buyer's Amount Paid
Names Proposed Payable
No. Agreement
Possession (in Rs.)(in Rs.)
Captain Gurtaj
Singh Sahni &
1. 08.06.2011 08.06.2013 2,65,54,354 2,60,43,892
Ms. Ritoo Sahni
(CC No.
6
|
603/2014) (Subvention) |
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
M/s. Vibha Batra (CC No. 958/2015) |
12.05.2011 |
2.05.2013 |
4,29,75,072 |
2,41,00,905 |
| 3. |
Mr. Gaurav Sundaram & Ms. N.T. Sundaram (CC No. 959/2015) |
10.05.2011 |
0.05.2013 |
2,59,20,104 |
1,64,94,342 |
| 4. |
Mr. Sachin Garg & Ms. Parul Garg (CC No. 960/2015) |
02.07.2011 |
2.07.2013 |
2,53,19,026 |
1,85,11,465 |
| 5. |
Mr. Ramkumar Sundaram & Ms. Anuja Gulati (CC No. 961/2015) |
15.03.2011 |
5.03.2013 |
2,60,90,104 |
1,37,14,841 |
| 6. |
Mr. Jaideep Sen & Ms. Ishita Sen (CC No. 962/2015) |
22.02.2012 |
2.02.2014 |
3,73,70,870 |
1,60,25,896 |
| 7. |
Mr. Sanjay Yadav (CC No. 963/2015) |
30.06.2012 |
0.06.2014 |
3,01,58,311 |
2,03,45,551 |
| 8. |
Mr. Siddhartha Das & Mr. Manas Das (CC No. 964/2015) |
12.12.2011 |
2.12.2013 |
4,26,42,752 |
1,25,70,567 |
Mr. Bimal
9. 25.02.2012 25.02.2014 2,98,45,811 2,23,14,587
Kumar Lakhotia
7
|
& Ms. Smriti Lakhotia (CC No. 965/2015) |
|
|
|
|
| 1. |
Mr. Rohit Kumrah & Ms. Ritu Kumrah (CC No. 966/2015) |
28.07.2011 |
8.07.2013 |
2,61,77,061 |
1,92,35,845 |
| 11. |
Mr. Pramod Bisht & Ms. Ekta Bisht (CC No. 1000/2015) |
18.03.2011 |
8.03.2013 |
2,59,70,104 |
1,37,72,496 |
| 12. |
Mr. Deepak Kaul & Ms. Bidya Kaul (CC No. 1007/2015) |
12.05.2011 |
2.05.2013 |
3,82,16,172 |
76,93,660 |
| 13. |
Ms. Ruma Bose (CC No. 1008/2015) (Subvention) |
22.09.2012 |
2.09.2014 |
3,05,70,811 |
3,01,88,243 |
| 14. |
Mr. Harvinder Singh Virk & Ms. Reema Virk (CC No. 1009/2015) |
30.04.2012 |
0.04.2014 |
4,70,16,557 |
2,27,44,035 |
| 15. |
Mr. Gaurav Manoher Negi 03.10.2012(CC No. 1010/2015) |
30.04.2011 |
0.04.2013 |
3,20,62,152 |
1,84,66,155 |
Mr. Prashant
16. Bindal (CC No. 03.10.2012 03.10.2014 2,98,45,811 1,71,21,514 1011/2015)
8
| 17. |
Mr. Maneesh Jaikrishna & Ms. Pooja Jaikrishna (CC No. 1408/2015) (Advance Payments) |
17.03.2011 |
7.03.2013 |
2,54,91,604 |
1,77,83,319 |
| 18. |
Dr. Siddhartha Chaudry (CC No. 1409/2015) |
25.07.2011 |
5.07.2013 |
2,57,07,604 |
1,36,07,422 |
It would thus be seen that the earliest villa was to be delivered by 15.03.2013, whereas
the last villa was to be delivered by 03.10.2014. However, the construction of the said villas is
far from complete. Being aggrieved, the complainants are before this Commission seeking
direction to the opposite party to complete the construction and pay them compensation in the
form of interest @ 12% per annum on the amount which they have paid to the opposite party.
They are also seeking direction to the opposite party to bear the burden of increase in the
service tax w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The complainants are also seeking Rs. 5 lacs each towards the
cost of litigation.
2. The complaints have been opposed primarily on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints. It is inter-alia stated in the reply filed by the opposite party that the construction of the project was affected due to shortage of water since the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide order dated 16.07.2012, stopped the usage of underground water and directed use only of the treated water from the available Sewerage Treatment Plants. Since the availability of the sewerage treatment plants and water from such plants is very limited as compared to the requirement, it became difficult to maintain the timely schedule of construction. Relying upon clause 4(a) of the Buyers Agreement, it is claimed that the completion of the construction has been delayed on account of circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. Relying upon clause 4(e), it is stated that in case the developer is unable to offer possession, it is liable either to offer an alternative property or to refund the amount received from the buyer alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. It is also claimed that as per clause 4(c)(iii) of the Buyers Agreement, in case of delay in delivering possession, the buyer is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 50/- per sq. yd. per month for the period the possession is delayed.
On merits, it is stated that structural work of the villa is on and the construction work is progressing.
3. It would thus be seen that admittedly, the opposite party had entered into Buyers Agreement with the complainants and promised to offer possession within two years from the date on which the said Buyers Agreements were executed. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has not been able to complete the construction of the villa though more than 1½
9
years have already expired from the date by which the last villa was to be handed over and more than three years have expired from the date by which the first villa was to be offered. Thus, the opposite party is at least 1½ years behind schedule in each case and it is not known when it would be able to complete the construction.
4. During the course of hearing, I asked the representative of the opposite party to inform as to when it will be able to complete the construction of the villas and offer possession to the complainants. She states on instructions that the construction was likely to be completed within one year from the date on which it resumes but the opposite party cannot commit any particular date for resuming the construction of the villas.
5. Since it is an admitted position that the opposite party had entered into Buyers Agreements with the complainants and deliver possession to them within 24 months of the said agreements, the direction sought by those complainants for completing the construction of the villas in a time bound manner is eminently justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party, in my opinion, should resume the construction within three months from today, complete the same in all respects within one year thereafter and offer possession after obtaining the requisite completion certificate, within three months thereafter. Thus, the villas after completion of construction and obtaining the requisite completion certificate should be offered to the complainants on or before 18 months from the date of this order.
6. The next question which arises for consideration is the quantum of compensation which should be paid to the complainants for the delay in completion of the villas. As far as the prohibition on use of underground water in construction is concerned, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by a Divisional Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 20032 of 2008 wherein the High Court noted that the public notice issued under Section 5(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 was published in the newspaper on 26.12.2000. It further shows that the said notice had imposed a complete ban upon the use of underground water in the construction without prior approval of the competent authority. It was noted by the High Court that despite publication of the aforesaid notice, the builders continued to use underground water for construction purposes. If there was a complete ban on use of underground water for construction and the said prohibition was notified on 26.12.2000, the opposite party must have taken into account, the impact of the said prohibition while entering into Buyers Agreements with the complainants. Therefore, it is not open to the opposite party to rely upon the said prohibition in order to justify the delay in construction of the villas sold to the complainants. The opposite party knew at the time of entering into agreements with the complainants that it will not be able to use underground water for construction of the villas and therefore, will have to make alternative arrangements from authorized sources for making the water available for the said construction. Therefore, the aforesaid prohibition on use of the underground water for construction purpose does not justify the delay in completion of the construction. In any case, no material has been placed by the opposite party on record to show that efforts were made by it during the relevant period to procure water from alternative sources but it was unable to obtain the water from the said sources. More importantly, in the Buyers Agreement executed between the parties, it was not disclosed to the buyers that since no underground water can be used for construction purpose, the developer will have to arrange water from alternative sources and in case it is not able to arrange water, the construction would be delayed and in
10
that case, it will not be held responsible for the delay in completion of the construction.
7. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of financing the purchase and construction of house, this Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. and Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. has awarded compensation by way of simple interest @ 12% per annum. In my opinion, the complainants are entitled to grant of compensation at the same rate. The following view taken by this Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey (supra) is pertinent as far as the quantum of compensation for the period the possession is delayed is concerned:
10. Since the delay in construction of the apartments could not be justified by the OP, it is required to pay compensation to the flat buyers. The contention of the learned counsel for the OP is that such compensation has to be calculated @ ₹5/- per sq. ft. of the super area of the apartment for the period of delay in offering the possession beyond the period indicated in clause 4.a.i of the Buyers Agreement, the complainants having agreed to the aforesaid term while agreeing to purchase the apartments. This was also the contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the terms of the contract are binding on the parties and cannot be altered by a consumer forum.
The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand, submitted that since they are required to pay interest to the OP @18% p.a. compounding quarterly, in the event of delay in making payment as stipulated in clause 2.c of the Buyers Agreement, there is no reason why the opposite party should not pay interest at the same rate to them, as compensation. The learned counsel for the parties, however, admitted that the current interest of taking housing loans from the banks is about 10% p.a. though it had shot up to 11.5% per annum in last few years. It is also an admitted position that had the complainants deposited their money with a bank in a FDR instead of investing in the project of the OP, they would have earned interest @ about10% p.a.
11. It is an undisputed proposition of law that ordinarily the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract voluntarily agreed by them and it is not for a Consumer Forum or even a Court to revise the said terms. The following view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express JT 1996 (6) SC 254 is pertinent:
"It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, that normally parties are bound by such contract; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established. It is true, as contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, that in an appropriate case the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. But each case depends upon its own facts".
11
In PUDA Vs. Mrs. Shabnam Virk II (2006) CPJ 1(SC), it was stated in an advertisement issued by PUDA that the price quoted therein was purely tentative based on the then cost of construction and was likely to be revised on the higher side by the time houses were completed. The respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenged the demand of the additional cost raised by PUDA. The demand however, was upheld noticing the aforesaid clause in the advertisement. However, a term of a contract, in my view will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary but was given under a sort of compulsion on account of the person giving consent being left with no other choice or if the said term amounts to an unfair trade practice. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that the term providing for payment of a nominal compensation such as Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area having become the order of the day in the contracts designed by big builders, a person seeking to buy an apartment is left with no option but to sign on the dotted lines since the rejection of such term by him would mean cancellation of the allotment. He further submitted that a person seeking to acquire a built up flat instead of purchasing a plot and then raising construction on it, therefore, is not in a position to protest resist the inclusion of such a term in the Buyer's Agreement, and has to rely upon the reputation of the builder, particularly if he is a big builder such as Unitech Ltd. He also submitted that the format of the Buyer's Agreement is never shown to the purchasers at the time of booking the apartment and if he refuses to sign the Buyer's Agreement on the format provided by the builder, not only will he lose the booking, even the booking amount/earnest money paid by him will be forfeited by the builder. I find merit in the above referred submissions of the learned counsel. A person who, for one reason or the other, either cannot or does not want to buy a plot and raise construction of his own, has to necessarily go in for purchase of the built up flat. It is only natural and logical for him to look for an apartment in a project being developed by a big builder such as the opposite party in these complaints. Since the contracts of all the big builders contain a term for payment of a specified sum as compensation in the event of default on the part of the builder in handing over possession of the flat to the buyer and the flat compensation offered by all big builders is almost a nominal compensation being less than .25% of the estimated cost of construction per month, the flat buyer is left with no option but to sign the Buyer's Agreement in the format provided by the builder. No sensible person will volunteer to accept compensation constituting about 2-3% of his investment in case of delay on the part of the contractor, when he is made to pay 18% compound interest if there is delay on his part in making payment.
12. It can hardly be disputed that a term of this nature is wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The builder charges compound interest @ 18% per annum in the event of the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to him but seeks to pay less than 3% per annum of the capital investment, in case he does not honour his part of the contract by defaulting in giving timely possession of the flat to the buyer. Such a term in the Buyer's Agreement also encourages the builder to divert the funds collected by him for one project, to another project being undertaken by him. He thus, is able to finance a new project at the cost of the buyers of the existing project and that too at a very low cost of finance. If the builder is to take loan from Banks or Financial Institutions, it will
12
have to pay the interest which the Banks and Financial Institutions charge on term loan or cash credit facilities etc. The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this very project. This gives credence to the allegation of the complainants that their money has been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r) (1) of the Act that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices enumerated in Section 2(r) (1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be evident from the use of word "including" before the words "any of the following practices".
14. As noted earlier, the cost of the borrowing for individual home buyers is about 10% per annum though it had gone upto 11.5% in last few years. In my view, if the opposite party, pays simple interest @ 12% per annum to the complainants, that would not only take care of the additional financial burden on them but also give some monetary compensation to them for their sufferings on account of the delay in handing over possession of the flat purchased by them.
8. If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.
9. Though in Satish Kumar Pandey (supra), this Commission had also awarded higher interest of 18% per annum in the unlikely event of the builder not delivering possession by the date stipulated in the said order and this was done with a view to ensure timely compliance of the said order, it is felt that since the buyers are interested in timely possession of the flat booked by them and not in higher compensation, such an order may not be necessary and in the event of the opposite party not complying with the order, the complainants should seek execution in terms of Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel for the complainants is in agreement with the aforesaid course of action.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:
(1) The opposite party shall resume construction of the villas sold to the complainants on or before 02.08.2016. The construction shall be completed in all respects on or before 02.08.2017. The opposite party shall apply for and obtain the completion certificate in respect of the villas at its own responsibility and then offer possession to the complainants on or before 02.11.2017.
(2) The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is
13
actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.
(3) No separate compensation would be payable to the complainants either towards the rent if any paid by them or for the mental agony and harassment which they have suffered on account of the failure of the opposite party to perform its contractual obligation.
(4) The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- in each complaint as the cost of litigation.
(5) The compensation for the period till 31.05.2016 shall be paid by the opposite party on or before 30.06.2016 whereas the compensation for the period from 01.06.2016 shall be paid by the 10thof each succeeding month.
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
14