Gurgaon Developer Ordered to Refund over 1.34 Crores for Delayed, Defective Unit.


18 October 2024 Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a significant ruling of Virender Singh Tanwar & Anr. Vs M/s. BPTP Ltd. Through Its Directors, New Delhi & Anr., a consumer court has directed a prominent developer, BPTP Ltd., to refund Rs. 1,35,48,628, along with 9% interest, to a couple who booked a luxury apartment in their “Amstoria” project. The decision comes after the developers failed to deliver the unit within the promised timeframe and offered a significantly altered and uninhabitable property.

The complainants, Virender Singh Tanwar and Balbiri Devi, had booked a 3BHK unit in 2012, paying a total of Rs. 1,35,48,628 towards the agreed consideration of Rs. 1,57,97,215. As per the Floor Buyer’s Agreement, possession was to be handed over by June 2015, including a six-month grace period. However, the project faced significant delays, with construction stalling after March 2013 and no further payment demands being made until 2017.


 

 

In 2018, the developers offered possession, but with a catch: the super area of the unit had been unilaterally increased from 2,833 sq. ft. to 3,106 sq. ft., resulting in an additional demand of Rs. 78,15,445. Moreover, the terrace space had been converted into a room with a tin roof, transforming the 3BHK into a 4BHK without the buyers’ consent.

An independent inspection revealed severe deficiencies, including the absence of electrical wiring, flooring, and sanitary fittings, as well as the use of gypsum plaster, which led to dampness. The unit was deemed uninhabitable. Despite repeated complaints, the developers continued to demand additional payments without addressing the issues.

The consumer court ruled that the developers’ actions constituted a “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices.” The court noted the significant delay in handing over possession, the unilateral alterations to the unit, and the delivery of a defective property. It also highlighted the complainants’ financial hardship, as they had taken a substantial loan to make the payments.

Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the consumer court emphasized that buyers cannot be compelled to accept delayed possession or altered units. The court ordered the developers to refund the entire amount paid with 9% interest from the respective dates of deposit, along with Rs. 50,000 for litigation costs. Failure to comply within three months would result in a 12% interest rate on the outstanding amount.

The decision underscores the importance of timely delivery and adherence to agreed-upon specifications in real estate projects. It serves as a stern warning to developers against unfair practices and reinforces consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act.


Section 21, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986