Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2018) 03 NCDRC CK 0125

Dr. Neelu Virlley & Anr vs G.P. Arora & Anr

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 23 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jain, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Consumer Case No. 930 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

41 paragraphs · 844 words

V.K.Jain,J

1.

The complainants entered into an agreement with the OPs for purchase of the second floor of house no. 18 on road no. L-19 in DLF Qutub

Enclave Phase-II, Gurgaon for a consideration of Rs.1,64,00,000/-. The said agreement was executed on 27.01.2014. Clause 3 of the said agreement

reads as under:

3.

That the full & final balance amount of Rs.99,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Only) which shall be paid by the second party to the first party on

or before 27 th April, 2014 or 7 days from the completion of construction and interior work as per (clause-2) of this agreement.

It would thus be seen that having already paid Rs.65 lacs to the OPs, the complainants were required to pay the balance amount of Rs.99 lacs within 7

days from the completion of the construction and interior work as per clause 2 of the said agreement, or on or before 27.04.2014. The aforesaid

clause cannot be interpreted to mean that the complainants were required to pay the balance amount of Rs.99 lacs to the OPs by 27.04.2014 even if

the construction of the flat was not complete by that time. Therefore, in my opinion, the OP ought to have completed the construction of the flat at

best by 27.04.2014 and in that case, the complainants ought to have made payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.99 lacs within 7 days from

the completion of the construction or by 27.04.2014 whichever might be later.

2.

The case of the OPs in para 8 of the written version is that they had actually completed the work by March 2014. However, there is no

documentary evidence of the construction work having been completed by March 2014. No report from an architect has been filed by the OPs to

prove that the construction was complete in terms of clause 2 of the agreement by March 2014. In fact, the written version filed by the parties does

not even disclose the name of the contractor who constructed the flat and the architect who supervised the said construction. No evidence of the

contractor or the architect has been filed to prove that the construction of the flat was completed in March 2014.

3.

Had the construction been completed by March 2014, as is claimed by the OPs, they would have at least sent a notice to the complainants requiring

them to pay the balance amount. Admittedly, after execution of the agreement, the complainants made a further payment of Rs.25 lacs to the OPs in

installments, last payment having been made in 13.06.2014. On the construction of the flat been complete by March 2014, the least the OPs would

have done was to send a legal notice to the complainants informing them of the completion of the construction and requiring them to pay the balance

amount of Rs.74 lacs.

4.

No occupancy certificate has been filed by the OPs to prove that the construction of the flat was complete in all respects.

5.

In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the OPs have failed to prove that they had completed the construction of the

flat by March 2014 as is alleged in the written version filed by them. The OPs are therefore, required to complete the construction in accordance with

clause 2 of the agreement read with Annexure-A thereto, obtain the requisite occupancy certificate and deliver possession of the second floor flat to

the complainants. The OPs are also required to pay an appropriate compensation to the complainants for the delay in the construction of the flat and

delivery of possession.

The learned counsel for the OPs has handed over today in the court a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 27.12.2012. The said certificate

obviously is not relevant since the second floor was to be re-constructed in terms of the agreement dated 27.01.2014 and a fresh occupancy

certificate was required to be obtained thereafter.

6.

The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The OPs shall complete the construction of the second floor in all respects, in terms of the agreement dated 27.01.2014 including Annexure-A to

the said agreement, obtain the requisite occupancy certificate and deliver possession of the flat complete in all respects as per the agreement and its

annexure, to the complainants within three months from today.

(ii) The OPs shall pay compensation to the complainants in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.65 lacs, with effect from

28.04.2014 till the date on which the possession in terms of this order is delivered.

(iii) The OPs shall pay compensation to the complainants in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.25 lacs with effect from

14.06.2014 till the date on which the possession in terms of this order is delivered.

(iv) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants.

(v) The compensation shall be paid to the complainants while delivering possession in terms of this order.