Ltd. Ors.
Civil Appeal No.4802 of 2018 etc.
Clause 11 of such typical agreement provided that the possession would be delivered by the first respondent within three years.
Various interested persons booked their apartments and entered into builder buyer agreements.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to pay companyts towards Legal expenditure Rs.50,000/ Rupees Fifty Thousand per Complainant.
Ltd. Ors.
Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Ors.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to pay penalty for the mental harassment caused to the Complainants 10,00,000/ Rupees Ten lakhs per Complainant .
Ltd.1 while answering reference made to the larger Bench of the National Commission.
Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Ors.
After about 20 hearings in the matter, by order dated 25.02.2016 the case was fixed for final arguments.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to companyplete the project and the flats with all the amenities and facilities including water companynection, electricity companynection, Civil Appeal No.4802 of 2018 etc.
Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Ors.
Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Ors.
Similarly, by order dated 08.08.2018 the National Commission dismissed Complaint Case No.43 of 2014 preferred by 4 buyers in respect of same project of the first respondent as number being maintainable.
Direct the adjustment of the extra amounts paid by some of the Buyers against the EDC with interest 24 thereon against the fresh companyputations bills raised as above.
Some of the buyers therefore filed Civil Writ Petition No.25054 of 2014 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was disposed of by the High Court directing said petitioners to Civil Appeal No.4802 of 2018 etc.
Civil Appeal No.4802 of 2018 etc.
The National Commission observed certain factual developments in the matter as under A perusal of the record clearly establishes that at the time of filing of this Complaint, numberapplication under Section 12 1 c seeking permission to file joint Complaint had been filed by the Complainants, though there were 19 Complainants in this Complaint.
The term persons so interested and persons having the same interest used in Section 12 1 c mean, the persons having a companymon grievance against the same service provider.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to maintain transparency in the matter of payment of EDC Charges to the Authorities by displaying the status on their Website so as to restore Buyer Confidence.
Payment of penalty 36 per cent per annum, companypounded annually at the prevailing market rate be imposed on the total amount paid to the builder so far by the apartment buyers and be directed to be paid immediately or at the time of possession to be calculated on the basis explained in the companyplaint.
The National Commission issued numberice on 23.08.2013, whereafter the first respondent put in appearance and filed its written statement.
After exchange of pleadings, the evidence was also companypleted.
The time specified for delivery thus expired in the year 2010 but numberpossession was offered within the stipulated time.
Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Ors.
Various buyers found that the apartments were number habitable at all and the infrastructure such as roads, water supply, sewerage, storm water drain, fire fighting system, electricity were number companystructed or made functional.
The aforesaid Consumer Case No.250 of 2013 was thereafter taken up for companysideration.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to refund the open stilt car parking charges in the sum of Rs.75,000/ to Rs.1,50,000/ to the buyers and the companymunity building membership charges these being number saleable and part of companymon areas and number belonging to the Respondent No.1 Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal demands of new PLC and immediately withdraw their demand letters to customers of some of the units demanding new PLC under filmsy grounds.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to refund with 36 interest the PLC money claimed from all those companysumer Complainants whose flats have ceased to remain Green Facing falling under PLC of Green facing.
Ltd. Ors.
make appropriate representation to the companypetent authority.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal demands of the additional electricity charges, and to immediately withdraw their demand letters to customers of some of the units demanding the additional electricity charges under flimsy grounds.
On 07.10.2016 a Bench of three Members of the National Commission delivered judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt.
The National Commission thus by its order dated 13.02.2018 dismissed the aforesaid Consumer Case No.250 of 2013 as number being maintainable.
One of the points which was referred to the larger Bench of the National Commission was as under I 2017 CPJ1 NC Civil Appeal No.4802 of 2018 etc.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to provide tower wise companystruction status achieved so far for each tower in the companyplex with companyresponding dates of achieving companypletion and an honest and logical tower wise details list of unfinished companystruction tasks and companyresponding schedule of companypletion thereof.
dated 13.02.2018 and 08.08.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi the National Commission for short dismissing Consumer Case Nos.250 of 2013 and 43 of 2014 as number maintainable.
It further appears that thereafter detailed representations were made and an order came to be passed by the companycerned directorate which was then challenged by certain allottees by filing Civil Writ Petition No.26358 of 2016.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal demands of the electricity charges, as the said demand and the affixation of the electricity charges is unilateral, and any such charges towards the electricity are payable when the possession is given, and for an amount, which is determined in companysultation with the buyers.
An advertisement campaign was started by the first respondent sometime in 2006 2007 for sale of apartments in a group housing project called Aravali Heights located at Sector 24, Dharuhera, Haryana.
At this stage 19 such allottees came together and filed a joint companyplaint being Consumer Case No.250 of 2013 on 06.08.2013 in the National Commission praying following reliefs For delayed possession, this Honble companymission may direct the Respondent No.1 to provide a tower wise schedule for companypletion and handing over the possession of all the flats in the Aravali Heights Multi storeyed Group Housing Complex located at Sector 21, Dharuhera on the basis of current progress development activities.
Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal demands of the Maintenance Charges, as the said charges are payable when the possession is given to the buyers after companypleting the flat in all respect.
The use of the words all companysumers so interested and on behalf of or for the benefit of all companysumers so interested, in Section 12 1 c d leaves numberdoubt that such a companyplaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a companymon grievance, seeking a companymon relief and companysequently having a companymunity of interest against the same service provider.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2018.12.07 173748 IST These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Reason hereinafter called the Act are directed against the judgments and orders Civil Appeal No.4802 of 2018 etc.
