National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) comprising Justice Deepa Gupta, retired High Court Judge, and Prem Narain, Member, has passed an order allowing home buyers in Empress City to file joint consumer complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

NCDRC held that there was a commonality in the grievance raised by the complainants and builder had failed to provide complete amenities despite passage of seven years, and hence the complaint was admitted as ‘class suit’. It directed publication of a public notice of the complaint under order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, 1908 in local newspapers to facilitate other home buyers to join the complaint.

 

 

NCDRC issued notices to builder and developer M/s Reward Real Estate Co Ltd and M/s KSL Industries Ltd in a joint consumer complaint filed by 63 home buyers namely Pawankumar Jain and others seeking seeking refund of their sale consideration along with interest of 16 per cent per annum on paid amount from the date of each payment. The claim of each complainant is approximately more than Rs one crore. The home buyers approached NCDRC against the builder and developer who allegedly failed to complete the project and provide sale-deed to consumers in spite of receiving complete sale consideration.

 

 

The petitioners contended that the builder had cheated them and failed to give the promised facilities and amenities till date. According to the complainants, they purchased 3-BHK flats admeasuring approximately 1,500 sq ft in ‘Empres City’ project near Gandhisagar lake in Nagpur, inclusive of all amenities, flower beds, parking slots, podium garden, club facility, gymnasium, security measures. The builder collected approximately Rs 200 crore from 300 prospective buyers but failed to complete the project and to deliver ‘valid possession’ even after six years. The complainants booked the flat for Rs 62 lakh each and paid full amount to the builder from May 26, 2012 to August 30, 2015.

 

 

The petitioners alleged that as per the purchase agreement the builder was required to give valid possession along with all necessary statutory compliances, but no such permissions and statutory compliances were obtained till date. They accused the builder of failing to procure statutory sanctions like occupancy certificate, building completion certificate, fire NOC, environmental clearance etc.

 

 

Tushar Mandlekar, counsel for the consumers, argued that the builder had indulged in ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’ and hence all consumers must be compensated. The builder also failed to give valid water connection to the home buyers who were forced to buy water from open market.

Adv Tushar Mandlekar assisted by Adv Rohan Malviya argued for the petitioners.