Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orders Full Refund and Compensation for Delayed Possession in Ansal Housing Case

23 December 2024 9:51 PM

By: sayum


Commission rules in favor of complainants, citing continuous cause of action and deficiency in service - The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC) has ruled in favor of the complainants, Mr. Vikas Jain and Ms. Mona Garg, in a case against Ansal Housing Ltd., ordering a full refund of Rs. 96,46,580 with interest, along with additional compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Hon'ble Mr. J.P. Agrawal, highlights the deficiency in service and the continuous cause of action due to the non-delivery of the promised residential unit.

The complainants, Mr. Vikas Jain and Ms. Mona Garg, both residents of California, USA, applied for a residential unit in Ansal Housing Ltd.'s project 'Estella' in Gurgaon in October 2010. Despite paying a substantial amount of Rs. 96,46,580, the possession of the unit was not handed over as per the agreed timeline in the Apartment Buyer Agreement dated July 20, 2012. The complainants alleged deficiency of service and sought a refund, interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses.

The Commission emphasized that the failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuous wrong, providing a recurrent cause of action. Referring to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission stated that the complainants were within their rights to file the complaint as the possession was neither delivered nor refunded. Citing the case of Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd., the Commission reiterated that non-delivery of possession is a continuous wrong, maintaining the complainants' cause to approach the consumer court.

The Opposite Party argued that the complainants did not qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, claiming the purchase was for commercial purposes. However, the Commission found no merit in this argument, noting that the Opposite Party failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting the commercial purpose claim. The Commission referred to judgments such as Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited and Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., affirming that purchasing multiple properties does not inherently indicate a commercial purpose.

The Opposite Party cited force majeure clauses, attributing delays to factors like groundwater extraction bans, sand mining bans, and demonetization. The Commission rejected these defenses, referencing similar cases where such claims were dismissed. The judgments in Sachin Goel & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited and Narinder Sachdeva & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited underscored that these circumstances did not constitute force majeure, as alternative solutions like using tankers for water were available.

The Commission found Ansal Housing Ltd. deficient in providing services, as they failed to fulfill their contractual obligations despite receiving timely payments. The Hon'ble Apex Court's interpretation in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. was cited, defining deficiency in service as any fault or inadequacy in the quality or manner of performance under a contract.The judgment extensively discussed the continuous nature of the cause of action due to non-delivery of possession. The Commission held that the complainants were entitled to a refund and compensation for the deficiency in service. It was emphasized that the mere delay and false assurances by the Opposite Party constituted a breach of contractual obligations, justifying the complainants' claims.

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal remarked, "The Opposite Party's failure to deliver possession and false assurances constitute a clear deficiency in service, warranting the relief sought by the complainants."

The DSCDRC's judgment underscores the importance of timely possession in real estate transactions and reaffirms the rights of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. By holding Ansal Housing Ltd. accountable for the delay and deficiency in service, the Commission has reinforced the legal framework protecting consumers from exploitation. This decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the continuous cause of action in real estate disputes.

Date of Decision: 05.07.2024

Similar News