BUILDER NOT PROVIDED FACILITIES AS PROMISED—JUDGEMENT IN FAVOUR OF FLAT OWNERS.
JUDGEMENT:–Debashis Sinha Vs. M/s RNR Enterprises Dt. 9.2.2023—Supreme Court.
- A Flat owner purchased a Flat. At that time Builder company promised that they will provide Parking, Garden, Gym, Yoga, Meditation Centre, Shopping Mall, Theatre and made many promises. The Flat Owner impressed upon their Broucher purchased the flat. Later the Flat owner took possession of the Flat and found that the Building had not provided such facilities promised at the time of purchase of Flat. Even the Builder had not provided Completion Certificate.
- The Flat owners approached National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) claiming the above facilities along with Compensation for causing mental agony.
- Builder company replied that when flat owners took possession of the Flat in 2006 they kept quite and after long period of 2 years i.e. in 2008 they cannot claim relief. Their right to claim forfeited.
- After hearing both sides, NCDRC held that once Flat owners taken Possession, they cannot claim any relief.
- Aggrieved by the above order, Flat owners went to Supreme Court. Supreme Court held that the order of NCDRC is wrong and highly illogical. The above acts of the Builder attracted DEFICIENCY OF SERVICES and UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE and the Flat owners are liable for the reliefs as they prayed.
- Supreme Court set aside the Order of NCDRC and held that normally in most cases possession will be delivered when the facilities are still in process and incomplete. Because to complete the facilities it may take long time. Hence, the Cause of action is not stalled and it is still continuous. In these circumstances, the NCDRC cannot say that once flat owners took possession they cannot claim any relief of facilities. The Supreme Court Held as follows:–
“DELAY IN DELIVERY OF FLATS AND NON PROVIDING OF PROMISED AMENTIES—UPON TAKING POSSESSION, A FLAT OWNER DOES NOT FOEFIETS HIS RIGHT TO CLAIM SUCH SERVICES WHICH RESULT IN DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE—SUPREME COURT” - Supreme Court remanded back the case to NCDRC and ordered to try the case afresh and give Judgement.