III (2023) CPJ 34 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
MEERA YADAV & ANR.
VERSES
EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.
Consumer Case No. 197 of 2020-Decided on 13.4.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(i) – Housing Booking of duplex apartment – Change of apartment into single floor apartment with approval from complainants Delay in 1 delivering possession Change in layout 1 and absence of main elements – Deficiency in service Complainants were intimated regarding change of their original preference of Duplex Unit to normal one in light of certain changes necessitated on account of modifications in original site Plan for reasons which were not entirely within control of Opposite Party/Developer Complainants opted to accept modified Unit instead of original Duplex dwelling Unit, and did not prefer to rescind from original understanding Such modification in the Development Plans as approved by Competent Authority, there were bound to be some changes in Project Layout from that which had been depicted in original site Plan, and Complainants raised no objections to altered Unit being offered to them – Ex facie, it would not appear justified to seek any compensation on account of such alterations except cost factor, or for any deviation from original site Plan except in situation where any specific preferential location charges had been collected from them by Developer/ Opposite Party- -It can also not be said that Complainants are prejudiced in any manner for not including Children’s Play Area in final development Plan, since they had paid no additional charges for same Their claim and insistence regarding removal of already installed Electric Sub-station would not appear to be justified or practical – Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation for delay in offering possession of Apartment in question from stipulated date till such possession was actually offered with interest on amount deposited by Complainants @ 8% p.a. from date of each respective deposit.