National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Vatika India Next Project - Consumer Protection Act Applies to Plot Allotment Despite Arbitration Clause - Deficiency in Service Established for Delayed Possession

Sub Category: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed a consumer complaint filed by Complainant( s) against Opp.Party(s) for deficiency in service regarding allotment of a residential plot in the 'Vatika India Next' housing project. The complainant had applied for a plot on 11.07.2011, paid Rs. 59,98,344 against total consideration of Rs. 1,09,42,078, and was promised possession within 36 months by 08.09.2014. The Opposite Party failed to deliver possession and raised preliminary objections including arbitration clause, complainant not being a consumer, and sale of plot simpliciter being outside the Act's purview. The Commission held that the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the arbitration clause did not oust its jurisdiction, and there was deficiency in service due to delayed possession. The Opposite Party was directed to refund the amount paid with interest @9% per annum from respective payment dates and pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Headnote

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that the allotment of a residential plot in a housing project constitutes 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 -- The Commission rejected the Opposite Party's contention that the complainant was an investor rather than a consumer -- The arbitration clause in the Plot Buyer Agreement was held not to oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum -- The Commission found deficiency in service as possession was not delivered within the promised 36 months -- The Opposite Party was directed to refund the amount paid with interest and compensation -- The Commission emphasized that one-sided clauses in builder-buyer agreements favoring the builder are not binding if found to be unfair

Issue of Consideration: Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for allotment of a residential plot in a housing project and whether the arbitration clause in the Plot Buyer Agreement ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum

Final Decision

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 59,98,344 with interest @9% per annum from respective payment dates till realization and pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment within 45 days

2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 60

Consumer Case No. 1958 of 2017

2025-01-23

HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),MEMBER

Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Mr. Himanshu Chugh

Anubhav Gargi

M/s Vatika Limited

Nature of Litigation: Consumer complaint regarding deficiency in service in real estate transaction

Remedy Sought

Complainant seeking refund of amount paid with interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs

Filing Reason

Failure to deliver possession of residential plot within promised timeframe and refusal to refund amount

Previous Decisions

No previous decisions mentioned in the judgment

Issues

Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 Whether the arbitration clause in the Plot Buyer Agreement ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum Whether there is deficiency in service by the Opposite Party

Submissions/Arguments

Complainant argued he was a consumer who purchased plot for residential purpose and OP failed to deliver possession within promised timeframe Opposite Party argued complainant was an investor, sale of plot simpliciter outside Act's purview, and arbitration clause should be invoked first

Ratio Decidendi

Allotment of residential plot in housing project constitutes 'service' under Consumer Protection Act 1986 -- Arbitration clauses in builder-buyer agreements cannot oust jurisdiction of consumer forums -- Delay in possession beyond agreed timeframe constitutes deficiency in service -- One-sided clauses favoring builder are not binding if unfair

Judgment Excerpts

The Commission held that the allotment of a residential plot in a housing project constitutes 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 The Commission rejected the contention that the complainant was an investor rather than a consumer The arbitration clause in the Plot Buyer Agreement was held not to oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum

Procedural History

Complaint filed under Section 21(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 -- Written statement filed by Opposite Party raising preliminary objections -- Rejoinder filed by complainant -- Arguments heard from both sides -- Judgment delivered on 23 January 2025

Related Judgement
Tribunals National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Va...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Appeal by Wipro Enterprises in Ex-Gratia Payment Dispute --...