Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Ravikant Bhatt v. Unitech Limited

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sep 22, 2016
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

Consumer Case No. 1232 of 2015

Advocates

For the Complainant: Mr. Vishvanath Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Ravikant Bhatt, Complainant in person

For the Opp. Party: Mr. Sahil Sachdeva, Advocate

JUDGES

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion — V.K. Jain (Presiding Member)

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainants, a husband and wife, booked a residential flat (Flat No.8) in a project called "Anthea Floors" in Sector 70, Gurgaon. An allotment letter dated 17.8.2012 allotted the flat to them for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,78,667/-. The parties executed a Buyers Agreement on 20.3.2013 which, under clause 4(a)(i), provided that possession was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the Buyers Agreement (subject to force majeure).

The complainants paid Rs.40,39,622/- to the opposite party (OP) but possession was not offered. They filed a complaint before the Consumer Commission seeking either possession of the flat or, in the alternative, refund of the amount paid along with compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum.

The opposite party filed a written version and resisted the complaint. It stated that the project formed part of a licensed plotted colony (Nirvana Country III, License No.66 of 2011 dated 21.7.2011) and that a revised demarcation/layout plan had been submitted on 19.9.2011 but not approved because the Haryana Government demanded External Development Charges (EDC). The OP challenged the EDC demand by way of Writ Petition No.15537 of 2015. The OP also explained that environmental clearance (as required by the Government of India notification dated 14.9.2006) was applied for on 7.4.2012 and obtained on 10.1.2014, alleging delay by authorities.

The Commission proceeded to hear the matter. Separately, there was an interlocutory matter (IA/4924 to 4926/2016) in which complainants' counsel alleged that the OP concealed the fact that the Writ Petition had been dismissed when filing its written version; the OP's counsel said the omission was inadvertent and that the dismissal and filing of an appeal were disclosed in an affidavit filed as evidence. The Commission declined to take action for that omission and dismissed those applications.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the delay in delivery of possession was due to circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party (specifically the EDC dispute and delay in environmental clearance) or whether the delay was attributable to the opposite party.
  2. Whether the opposite party's omission to disclose the dismissal of its Writ Petition in its written version warranted any action by the Commission.
  3. Whether clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement limits the refund remedy to repayment of amounts with simple interest @ 12% per annum (and thus whether the complainants' claim for interest @ 18% per annum is maintainable).
  4. What relief (possession, refund, interest, costs, timelines) should be granted to the complainants if the OP is held liable for delay or inability to deliver the flat.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

  • They paid Rs.40,39,622/- to the OP but possession of the allotted flat has not been offered.
  • They seek either delivery of possession or, in the alternative, refund of the amount paid together with compensation by way of interest @ 18% per annum.
  • In an interlocutory contention they alleged that the OP concealed that its Writ Petition had been dismissed when filing its written version.
  • On the last date of hearing the complainants restricted their claim to refund of the principal amount paid along with interest @ 12% per annum in accordance with clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement.

Opposite Party's Arguments

  • The project was part of a licensed plotted colony (Nirvana Country III) with an approved layout dated 21.7.2011; the OP submitted a revised layout on 19.9.2011 which was not approved because the Haryana Government demanded EDC.
  • The OP challenged the EDC demand by filing Writ Petition No.15537 of 2015 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
  • The OP contended that environmental clearance was mandatory (notification dated 14.9.2006), that it applied for clearance on 7.4.2012, and that there was delay on the part of government authorities in granting the clearance (which was ultimately issued on 10.1.2014).
  • The OP invoked clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement which provides for refund with simple interest @ 12% per annum if the developer is unable to offer the allotted property, and contended that the complainants' claim for 18% interest is not maintainable.
  • Regarding the omission to mention the dismissal of the Writ Petition in the written version, the OP's counsel stated that the omission was inadvertent and pointed out that the dismissal and subsequent appeal were disclosed in an affidavit filed as evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission conducted a fact-focused analysis applying the contractual terms and the evidence before it:

  1. Disclosure of revised layout plan and contractual expectations:

    The OP had submitted a revised layout plan on 19.9.2011 before allotment and before execution of the Buyers Agreement (20.3.2013). The Commission noted that the allotment letter and the Buyers Agreement did not disclose that the OP had submitted a revised plan which was yet to be approved. The court considered this omission material because, had the purchasers been informed that the OP intended to act on an unapproved revised plan, they might have refrained from entering the Buyers Agreement given the 36-month possession timeline in the Agreement.

  2. Responsibility for non-approval of the revised layout plan (EDC dispute):

    The OP did not obtain approval for the revised layout because it declined to pay the EDC demanded by the Haryana Government and instead challenged the demand by way of a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15.12.2015 (though a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court with notice issued). The Commission reasoned that the dismissal of the Writ Petition implied that the challenge to the EDC demand had no merit and that the failure to obtain approval of the revised layout plan was therefore attributable to the OP's decision not to pay the EDC and to litigate instead of paying and seeking a refund from the Government later.

  3. Environmental clearance delay:

    The court observed that the OP knew at the time of accepting booking that environmental clearance would be necessary for a project of that size (notification dated 14.9.2006). The OP either should have obtained the clearance before accepting bookings or at least informed buyers that commencement and delivery were contingent on such clearance. Importantly, even after the environmental clearance was obtained in January 2014, the OP had not started construction of the complainants' flat for about 32 months (the court records that excavation work had not begun). This conduct indicated the delay was not solely due to the time taken in obtaining environmental clearance.

  4. Application of clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement:

    Clause 4(e) provides that if the developer is unable to offer the allotted floor, it shall offer an alternative property in surrounding projects, and if no alternate property is available, refund the amount paid with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment. The court found that the OP had neither offered an alternative property nor refunded the amount in terms of clause 4(e).

  5. Conclusion on causation and remedy:

    Because the delay was not attributable to reasons beyond the OP's control and because the OP failed to perform its contractual obligation to offer the flat or provide an alternative/refund as per clause 4(e), the OP was held liable to refund the entire amount received with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment until refund. The court also noted that the complainants had narrowed their claim to refund with 12% interest on the last date of hearing, consistent with clause 4(e).

  6. Interlocutory allegation of concealment:

    With respect to the allegation that the OP concealed the dismissal of its Writ Petition in its written version, the court accepted the OP's explanation that the omission was inadvertent and observed that the dismissal and the filing of an appeal were disclosed in the affidavit filed by the OP as evidence. Considering these facts, the court declined to take action against the OP or its directors for the omission and dismissed the applications relating to that allegation.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The complaint is disposed of in favour of the complainants.

The Commission directed the following relief (direct effects on the parties):

  1. Refund: The opposite party (OP) shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.40,39,622/- to the complainants.
  2. Interest: The refund shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date(s) of payment by the complainants until the date on which the amount is refunded.
  3. Costs: The OP shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation.
  4. Timeline: Payment in terms of the order is to be made within three months from the date of the order.
  5. Interlocutory applications: The applications relating to alleged concealment (IA/4924 to 4926/2016) were dismissed; the Commission did not initiate action against the OP or its directors for that omission.

Implications:

The decision orders a contract-based refund and interest in accordance with clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement, and imposes a modest cost of litigation. The opinion does not advert to or purport to lay down any broader legal precedent beyond the facts and contractual terms of this matter. The direct consequence is the monetary refund/interest and costs noted above; the Commission treated the OP's failure to obtain approvals or commence construction as actionable under the Buyers Agreement and awarded relief accordingly.

Presiding Member: V.K. Jain

Show all summary ...

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) (Directions)IA/4924 to 4926/2016 The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the opposite party despite knowing that Writ Petition which it had filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had been dismissed before the written version came to be filed by it, concealed the aforesaid fact while filing its written version, thereby giving an impression that the said Writ Petition was still pending. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, submits that it was an inadvertent omission not to refer to the dismissal of the Writ Petition while filing the written version. He has pointed out that the factum of the dismissal of the Writ Petition and filing of an appeal against the order dismissing the Writ Petition has been duly disclosed in the affidavit filed by the opposite party by way of evidence. Considering all the facts and circumstances including that the factum of the dismissal of the Writ Petition was disclosed in the affidavit filed by way of evidence, I do not deem it appropriate to initiate any action against the opposite party or its directors for the aforesaid omission. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. CC/1232/2015 The complainants who are husband and wife, booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely Anthea Floors which the said OP was to develop in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. Vide allotment letter dated 17.8.2012, the opposite party allotted Flat No.8 in the aforesaid project to them, for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,78,667/-. The parties then entered into a Buyers Agreement on 20.3.2013, incorporating their contractual obligations. As per clause 4(a)(i) of the Buyers Agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the Buyers Agreement, subject of course to force majeure circumstances. . The grievance of the complainants is that despite they having already paid a sum of Rs.40,39,622/- to the OP , the possession of the flat has not been offered to them. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the flat allotted to them or in the alternative refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum.

2. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party. It is alleged in the written version that the project Anthea Floors was a part of licensed plotted colony, namely, Nirvana Country III falling under License No.66 of 2011 dated 21.7.2011. Thus, the layout plan for the said colony had been approved on 21.7.2011. The opposite party applied for demarcation-cum-revised layout plan for Nirvana Country III on 19.9.2011. However, the said revised layout plan was not approved since Haryana Government was demanding charges, which the builders challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of Writ Petition No.15537 of 2015. It is also stated in the affidavit filed by the opposite party by way of evidence that Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests had made it mandatory to obtain environmental clearance in respect of certain projects vide notification dated 14.9.2006 and the opposite party had submitted an application for obtaining the requisite environmental clearance in respect of Anthea Floors on 7.4.2012 but there was a delay on the part of the government authorities in granting the requisite clearance which came to be issued only on 10.1.2014. It is also stated in the said affidavit that as per clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement, in case the amount deposited by the complainants is to be refunded, the same would be refunded with simple interest @ 12% per annum and the prayer for refund with 18% interest is not maintainable.

3. As noted earlier, the opposite party had the requisite approval to the layout of the project in which the allotment was made to the complainants, the said approval having been granted way back on 21.7.2011. The opposite party submitted the revised layout plan on 19.9.2011. Despite a revised layout plan having already been submitted by that date, the opposite party did not disclose in the allotment letter issued to the complainant that they had submitted a revised layout plan for the project Anthea Floors on 19.9.2011 and the said revised plan was yet to be approved. If the opposite party wanted to develop the project only in accordance with the revised layout plan submitted on 19.9.2011, the aforesaid vital information ought to have been disclosed to the complainants at the time of booking of the flat. The Buyers Agreement with the complainants was executed on 20.3.2013. Even in the said Buyers Agreement, it was not disclosed that the opposite party did not intend to act upon the previously approved layout plan and had submitted a revised layout plan to the TCPO, which was yet to be approved. Had that been disclosed to the complainants, it is quite possible that they would have not have entered into the said agreement with the opposite party since, they could not have been sure that the opposite party which was yet to receive approval to the revised layout plan, would be able to deliver possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of the Buyers Agreement.

4. The revised layout plan, according to the opposite party could not be approved by Haryana Government since the External Development Charges (EDC) being demanded by the said Government were not acceptable to the opposite party which filed a Writ Petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the said charges. In my view, considering the contractual obligation incorporated in the Buyers Agreement to deliver possession within 36 months from the date of the said agreement, the opposite party ought to have paid the EDC and obtained approval to the revised layout plan instead of waiting for the outcome of the Writ Petition challenging the said charges. The opposite party even after paying the EDC as demanded by the Haryana Government could have challenged the said charges and sought refund from the Government. Such a course of action, however, was not adopted by the opposite party.

5. Admittedly, the Writ Petition filed by the opposite party challenging the demand of EDC has been dismissed by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15.12.2015 though a Special Leave Petition against the aid order has been filed before the Honble Supreme Court and a notice in the said petition has already been issued. The dismissal of the Writ Petition by Punjab and Haryana High Court implies that there was no merit in the challenge to the demand of EDC by Govt. of Haryana. Therefore, the failure of the Government to approve the revised layout plan is attributable solely to the decision of the opposite party not to pay the EDC and rather challenge the same by way of a Writ Petition. The complainants, in my view, cannot be made to suffer on account of the course of action adopted by the opposite party.

6. As regards the delay in obtaining the environmental clearance, the opposite party knew before accepting booking from the complainants and allotting a flat to them that since the size of the project was more than 20,000 sq.ft. of built up area, environmental clearance in terms of the Notification dated 14.9.2006 would be necessary and the said clearance would be given only after the project was approved by State Environment Impact Assessment Committee and then by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. It was, therefore, necessary for the opposite party to either obtain the requisite environmental clearance before accepting the booking or at least inform the buyers that the construction would commence only after obtaining the requisite environmental clearance which they were yet to receive. This is particularly necessary in a case where the builder is promising delivery of the apartment in a time-bound manner linked with the date of the Buyers Agreement and not with the date on which the construction actually commences after obtaining all the requisite clearances. If such a disclosure is made to the buyer and still he chooses to make a booking knowing fully well that the builder may not be held responsible for the delay to this extent it is attributable solely to the concerned environmental authority, it will not be possible to hold the builder responsible for the delay in the aforesaid extent.

7. More importantly in the present case even after obtaining the requisite environmental clearance in January 2014, the opposite party has not even started construction of the flat which it had allotted to complainants. According to the learned counsel for the complainants even the excavation work at the site has not begun though the environmental clearance came to be accorded about 2 years and 8 months ago. The aforesaid conduct of the opposite party in not even starting the construction for about 32 months after obtaining the requisite environmental clearance clearly indicates that the delay in the project has occurred for reasons other than the time taken in obtaining the environmental clearance.

8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the delay in construction of the flat allotted to the complainants did not happen on account of reasons beyond the control of the opposite party.

9. Clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement reads as under: 4.e Inability to offer floor: That if for any reason whatsoever, the developer is unable to offer the allotted floor to the purchaser(s), as agreed herein, the developer will offer the purchaser(s) an alternative property in any complex developed, underdeveloped or proposed to be developed in the surrounding area/projects and if no alternate property is available the developer will refund the amount paid by the purchaser(s) in full with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment(s) by the purchaser(s). The developer shall not in the event of such an eventuality be liable to pay any other damages, charges or compensation. It would thus be seen that since the OP was unable to develop the project in which flat was booked by the complainants, it ought to have offered an alternative property to them in a surrounding area/project. If no alternate property was available, they ought to have offered refund of the amount which the complainants had paid to them along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment. Admittedly, neither an alternative property nor refund in terms of the above referred clause was offered to the complainants.

10. In my view, since the OP has not been able to offer the allotted flat to the complainants nor has it offered an alternative property in a surrounding area/project to them, it is liable to refund the entire amount received from the complainants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date on which the said amount is refunded. It would be pertinent to note here that on the last date of hearing, the complainants had restricted their claim to refund of the principal amount paid by them to the OP along with interest on that amount @ 12% per annum in terms of clause 4(e) of the Buyers Agreement.

11. The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions: (1) The OP shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.40,39,622/- to the complainants along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the payment till the date on which the said amount along with compensation in the form of interest in terms of this order is refunded. (2) The OP shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation. (3) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today. ......................J

V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x