Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 231 - SC - Indian LawsConsumer protection - validity of one sided agreement between the builder and buyer - right of buyer of flat in case of default committed by the builder / developer - Direction to pay the amount awarded by the National Commission with Interest - discharge of loan amount - Tripartite Loan Agreement - Held that:- In the present case, admittedly the Appellant–Builder obtained the Occupancy Certificate almost 2 years after the date stipulated in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. As a consequence, there was a failure to hand over possession of the flat to the Respondent–Flat Purchaser within a reasonable period. The Occupancy Certificate was obtained after a delay of more than 2 years on 28.08.2018 during the pendency of the proceedings before the National Commission. The Respondent – Flat Purchaser has made out a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant – Builder. The Respondent – Flat Purchaser was justified in terminating the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement by filing the Consumer Complaint, and cannot be compelled to accept the possession whenever it is offered by the Builder. The Respondent–Purchaser was legally entitled to seek refund of the money deposited by him along with appropriate compensation. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder - The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder. There is no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent–Flat Purchaser. The Appellant–Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms - appeal dismissed.
|