Delhi State Commission Holds Regal Emporio Liable For Deficiency In Service For Falsely Assuring Completion Of A Project And Retaining The Complainant's Money.

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant leased a shop from M/S Regal Emporio Infratech Company in their “Regal Emporio” project in Greater Noida. Later, the company allocated a shop to the complainant in Tower I via an allotment letter. The company promised possession of the shop within three years of the allotment letter's execution. Subsequently, the company sent an undated letter announcing the renaming of the project to “Boulevard Walk”. The company issued demand letters to the complainant according to a payment plan without initiating any construction. Additionally, the company altered the size, measurement number, basic sale price, and tower of the complainant's shop. Despite multiple visits to the company's office and the project site, the complainant received no satisfactory updates on the project's progress. Frustrated by the project's delay, the complainant sent a legal notice demanding possession of the shop but received no response. Furthermore, the complainant has not received any refund from the company. The complainant has paid a total of Rs. 7,35,339 to the company as and when requested.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The company contested the case, arguing that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as the complainant had invested the money for profit-making, constituting a commercial purpose. The company further asserted that the project in question was registered under RERA and, therefore, that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. They also claimed that the project's delay was due to Force Majeure conditions such as litigation between farmers and the Greater Noida Industrial Authority, as well as orders issued by the Hon'ble NGT.

Observations by the Commission

The commission referred to the case of Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. wherein the National Commission held that the burden of proof lies with the opposite party to demonstrate that the flats were purchased for commercial purposes. Without adequate documentary evidence, the mere assertion by the opposite party is insufficient to establish this claim. Similarly, in the case of Mr. Sushil Rastogi vs. M/s Regal Emporio Infratech Pvt. Ltd., the Commission emphasized that a mere statement by the opposite party that the complainant purchased the shop for commercial purposes is insufficient without supporting evidence. In the present case, the absence of material showing the complainant's sole intention to profit from the sale of such shops means that mere allegations of commercial intent cannot justify rejecting the consumer complaint.

Furthermore, regarding RERA having the appropriate jurisdiction, the commission referred to the ruling in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing complainants the choice to pursue remedies under either the Consumer Protection Act or the RERA Act, depending on their preferences and circumstances. This ruling was based on the understanding that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are supplementary to those available under special statutes like the RERA Act. The commission observed that remedies provided by the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are supplementary to those offered under special statutes. Additionally, if proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act begin after the enactment of the RERA Act, there is no provision in the RERA Act prohibiting such initiation. Consequently, the commission dismissed the contention of the company that this Commission lacks jurisdiction over the present complaint due to the project's registration under RERA, as it lacks merit.

The commission referenced the case of Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., to determine whether adequate services were provided to the Complainant by the company. According to the Lease Cum Allotment Agreement between the parties, the company was obligated to complete the construction of the shop within a specified time frame. However, as of the present date, the construction remains incomplete. Relying on established legal principles, it was determined that the company indeed failed to fulfill its service obligations to the Complainant by falsely assuring completion within a specified time frame and retaining the Complainant's money for approximately nine years. The company argued that the project's delay was due to Force Majeure conditions such as litigations between farmers and the Greater Noida Industrial Authority, and orders from the Hon'ble NGT. However, upon review of the evidence, no such conditions were found to have caused delays in the project. The responsibility for completing the construction within the agreed-upon timeframe lies solely with the company, and the Complainant should not suffer due to their shortcomings.

The commission directs the company to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant, i.e., Rs. 7,35,339, along with interest an interest @ 6% p.a. along with Rs. 1,00,000 as cost for mental agony and the litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000.

Case Title: Mr. Sushil Rastogi Vs. M/S Regal Emporio Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 1076/2017