PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. versus GOVINDAN RAGHAVAN

PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. versus GOVINDAN RAGHAVAN

The National Commission rightly found deficiency of service due to the appellant's failure to obtain the Occupancy Certificate and offer possession within the contractual period; the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement contained ex facie one-sided and unfair terms constituting an unfair trade practice under Section 2(r); the respondent was entitled to treat the builder's failure as ground for termination via the consumer complaint and to a refund of amounts deposited with interest; Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate Rules, 2017 justified awarding interest at 10.7% S.I. p.a. for the relevant periods; the appeal was dismissed and the National Commission’s order affirmed.

Parties
Appellant Builder: Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd.; Respondent Flat Purchaser: Govindan Raghavan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order Dated 23.10.2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed
Legal Topics
Deficiency of Service, Unfair Trade Practice, Unconscionable/one Sided Contract Terms, Termination of Agreement, Interest on Refund, Occupancy Certificate, Compensation
Consumer Protection Contract Real Estate Regulation Deficiency of Service Unfair Trade Practice Unconscionable/one Sided Contract Terms Termination of Agreement Interest on Refund +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd.

Appellant Builder

Govindan Raghavan

Respondent Flat Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order Dated 23.10.2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate delay in obtaining Occupancy Certificate and handing over possession constitutes deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement contained one-sided or unconscionable terms amounting to unfair trade practice under Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  3. 3 Whether the respondent could treat filing of the consumer complaint as termination and claim refund despite contractual termination procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The National Commission rightly found deficiency of service due to the appellant's failure to obtain the Occupancy Certificate and offer possession within the contractual period; the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement contained ex facie one-sided and unfair terms constituting an unfair trade practice under Section 2(r); the respondent was entitled to treat the builder's failure as ground for termination via the consumer complaint and to a refund of amounts deposited with interest; Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate Rules, 2017 justified awarding interest at 10.7% S.I. p.a. for the relevant periods; the appeal was dismissed and the National Commission’s order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Final Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2018 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed

Orders

  • Appellant directed to refund Rs.44843026 to the respondent with interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. as ordered by the National Commission
  • Interest to be applied from date of each installment till 05.02.2017 (excluding period of interim stay) and thereafter from date of the Commission’s final Order till refund