Flats not delivered, consumer commission directs builder to refund Rs 41 lakh to couple
The State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, has held a builder, YPS Developers of Ghaziabad, guilty of deficiency in service for not delivering two flats booked in 2014 by a couple. The builder has been directed to refund Rs 41 lakh to the couple with interest.
While hearing an appeal filed by the complainants, SK Verma and Narinder Verma of Chandigarh, the commission increased the interest rate from 6 per cent to 9 per cent and compensation from Rs 70,000 to Rs 1,70,000.
The commission, however, has held that the individual who gave assurance for the project is not responsible for the refund of money.
The complainants alleged that they had paid about Rs 26 lakh to the builder for two flats in 2014 and the builder had assured good returns which now amounted to about Rs 15 lakh.
SK Verma alleged that the flats were booked on the assurance and guarantee of a person who was a common friend. He alleged that the person had committed that he would be responsible to refund the money in case the builder defaulted.
Earlier, the district commission had allowed the complaint, directing YPS Developers to refund the amounts deposited along with assured return to both the complainants. It also held an individual, who was a common friend, responsible to refund the amount as he had allegedly advised the complainants to buy the flats.
Not satisfied with the judgment, that person also challenged the order.
Pankaj Chandgothia, advocate for the person, contended that the District Consumer Commission had gone beyond their jurisdiction as they had no right to pass orders against the individual since he had not received any amount from the complainants.
Chandgothia contended that complainants had paid the entire money to YPS Developers and not a single penny was paid to the person concerned.
Chandgothia said that the person was a common friend and therefore, only gave guidance and verbal assurance for the project. All documents and receipts were issued only by YPS Developers.
The individual could not be held responsible for any refund by the consumer court as the complainants did not fall within the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
After hearing of the arguments, the Full Bench of the State Commission ruled that "there is no evidence to establish that even a penny was ever paid by them to the person”. “The mere fact that the person carried out some correspondence or gave assurances to the complainants does not make him liable in the matter,” it stated. The commission, therefore, dismissed the complainants’ plea against the person and directed the couple to refund about Rs 7.5 lakh taken by them from the person.
