In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Golden Peacock Residence Pvt. Ltd. responsible for delayed possession in Consumer Case No. 2268 of 2017. The complaint was filed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Taneja, Ms. Anita Taneja, and others, seeking redress for the inadequate service provided by the real estate company. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, highlighting the key facts and implications of the judgment.
The Complaint and Allegations
In the case presented before the National Consumer Commission, the complainants accused Golden Peacock Residence Pvt. Ltd. of breaching their contractual obligations regarding timely possession. The company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, had launched the "Michael Schumacher World Tower" housing project in Gurgaon, promising state-of-the-art facilities and amenities.
Booking and Deposit
Believing in the representations made by the company, the complainants booked a flat in the project on June 27, 2012, and paid a booking amount of Rs. 2,500,000/-. Subsequently, they made additional payments as per the demands made by Golden Peacock Residence Pvt. Ltd. The total consideration amounted to Rs. 39,051,200/-.
Delayed Possession and Excessive Delays
Despite the contractual agreement to provide possession within 36 months from the execution of the agreement, the project remained far from completion even after the expiry of the due date on August 27, 2016. The complainants presented photographic evidence demonstrating that out of the proposed 29 floors, only 9 had been constructed. This blatant delay raised concerns about the company's inability to fulfill its commitments.
Ex Parte Proceedings and Supporting Evidence
After serving notice to the opposite party, Golden Peacock Residence Pvt. Ltd., and receiving no response, the Consumer Commission proceeded with the case ex parte. The complainants submitted substantial evidence, including the affidavit of evidence, documentary evidence, and written submissions, to substantiate their claims.
Legal Precedents and Consumer Rights
The National Consumer Commission referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the rights of consumers and the responsibility of developers to provide timely possession. These landmark rulings highlighted the fact that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession.
Commission's Verdict and Relief Granted
Considering the evidence presented and the legal precedents, the National Consumer Commission partly allowed the complaint. It directed Golden Peacock Residence Pvt. Ltd. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the respective deposit dates until the refund date. The company was given a two-month period to fulfill this obligation.
The judgment rendered by the National Consumer Commission in Consumer Case No. 2268 of 2017 reflects the importance of safeguarding consumer rights and holding real estate developers accountable for their actions. The ruling reaffirms the principle that buyers have the right to expect timely possession of their properties. This case serves as a reminder to all developers to fulfill their commitments and deliver projects within the agreed timelines.
Note: Please note that the information provided in this article about the complaint filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is for educational purposes only. The complaint number for reference is CONSUMER CASE NO. 2268 OF 2017
By subscribing to AryaBot, you can receive updates on all RERA-approved projects in your desired area directly on your WhatsApp. AryaBot offers a free list of new RERA-approved real estate developments, so you can stay up-to-date on the latest developments in the area.
Know more about AryaBot at ReunionHQ
Explore the list of new RERA approved projects in Maharashtra.