Last Updated:
The business claimed that home purchasers aren’t customers under theConsumer Protection Act It said that declaring acquisitions commercial comprise a business objective
The business not just stopped working to give the guaranteed home however additionally declined to return the cash. (Representative/Shutterstock)
An individual that spent their cost savings to buy their desire home was maintained waiting when the building contractor, that guaranteed to provide the home within 3 years, consistently delayed.
Eleven years later on, your home continues to be undelivered. Frustrated and hopeless, the customer looked for a reimbursement. However, the business not just stopped working to give the guaranteed home however additionally declined to return the cash.
Left without various other alternative, the customer transformed to the courts for justice. However, the business said that the customer does not certify as a “customer”, claiming that the consumer court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. This shocking assertion left the buyer in a dire situation – deprived of both his dream home and his savings.
Many homebuyers in Delhi face harrowing experiences. Nirmal Satwant Singh, a Gurugram resident invested his life savings to book three flats in 114 Avenue on 24 July 2013, from a Delhi-based builder, VSR Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.
Nirmal paid Rs 2.4 crore for flats with the promise of possession within three years. However, when possession was not granted even after 11 years, Nirmal filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission. He demanded a refund and compensation for the difficulties endured.
For many years, Nirmal attempted to resolve the issue directly with the company, requesting either possession of the flat or a refund. Each time he enquired about his money, the company would only provide a new date for possession. Despite having a formal agreement in place, the possession date was repeatedly extended. After numerous attempts to obtain a satisfactory resolution proved futile, Nirmal felt compelled to seek redress through the Consumer Commission.
In the consumer court, the company’s defence, seeking to dismiss the customer’s complaint, centred on maintenance, its limitations, and other factors. Furthermore, the company asserted that, under the Consumer Protection Act, a customer purchasing a property does not qualify as a consumer, claiming the buyer’s intention was profit-driven and therefore constituted a commercial purpose.
The company also stated that the consumer forum lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. It attributed the delay in flat possession to pollution and government-imposed construction halts. After a period of silence, the company announced the flat was ready, pending an occupancy certificate, after which possession would be granted.
Rejecting all arguments presented by the company, the Consumer Forum definitively stated that the homebuyer is classified as a consumer, having paid for the flat. The property was purchased as a residence. Furthermore, the Commission ordered the company to refund Rs 2.4 crore to the customer. Additionally, it mandated the company to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 50,000 to cover legal expenses. Justice Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal deemed the company’s failure to deliver possession after 11 years a deficiency in service.
