The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed DLF Utilities Limited to refund the entire amount invested by a buyer who was compensated with an irregular plot by the real estate company.
The complainant, Praveen Gupta, alleged that in 2011 he had booked a plot in DLF Garden City which was being developed by the company in Gurugram. According to the agreement, he was supposed to get the possession of the plot within 24 months.
Plot size issue
The complainant alleged that in 2014, a year after the original date of possession, the developer informed him that the final plot size would be bigger than what he had signed up for. The size of Mr. Gupta’s plot had increased from 250.80 square metres to 375.95 square meters. Mr. Gupta said he was unable to pay the excess amount and sought for allotment of the original plot size or a refund of the amount paid by him.
The developer, instead of allotting the promised plot, allotted him an irregular plot, which was unacceptable to the complainant.
Justified objection
The National Commission, while ruling in favour of the complainant, observed: “It can hardly be disputed that an allottee is entitled to a regular plot, i.e. a plot having equal width on the front as well as the back and cannot be compelled to accept an irregular plot which is less wide on the front as compared to the back side. The complainant, therefore, is justified in refusing to accept the allotment of the aforesaid plot even if its area was about 300 square yards. ”
Full compensation
As compensation, the commission directed DLF Utilities Limited to refund the entire amount invested by the buyer, around ₹1.39 crore, and an additional ₹10,000 as cost of litigation.
The NCDRC also dismissed the defence’s argument that it had “never made a commitment to give possession of the plot within 24 months” but only “made an endeavour” to do the same. “When a builder undertakes an endeavour to offer possession within a specified period, the possession ought to be offered within that period, unless it is prevented by sufficient cause from making such an offer. The opposite party has failed to establish that the offer for possession of the plot was delayed on account of reasons beyond its control,” the commission said.
