DSCDRC Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Service Deficiency; Puts Onus To Prove Commercial Purpose Intent Of Buyers

DSCDRC Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Service Deficiency; Puts Onus To Prove Commercial Purpose Intent Of Buyers

Earlier, the District Commission had ordered the builder to refund the amount to the complainants and compensate them

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC) has held that the ownership of multiple houses does not inherently demonstrate commercial intent.

The bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Pinki (Member) stated that the responsibility to prove that a purchase was made for commercial purposes was with the builder. It necessitated the presentation of documentary evidence.

The complainants booked a 3-bedroom apartment in a project launched by TDI Infrastructure at TDI City for Rs.28,36,926. The possession was due by September 2013.

However, until 2015, they paid Rs.26,47,852 with 10 percent payable on possession. But despite several requests, the builder neither handed over the possession nor paid them a penalty for the delay.

The complainants, one a retired government servant, suffered mental torture and financial distress.

Aggrieved by the situation, they approached the District Commission, which directed the builder to refund Rs.26,47,852, along with 24 percent interest. It also ordered the builder to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000 to the complainants for mental torture, pain, and harassment for deficiency in service.

Shocked by the consequences, the builder appealed before the DSCDRC.

He contended that the District Commission failed to consider that the respondents were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, as the apartment was purchased for commercial purposes.

The builder added that the complainants did not make timely payments as per the schedule, and the District Commission awarded interest at an exorbitant rate without justification. He sought the overturning of the District Commission’s order.

The DSCDRC decided to uncover whether the complainants fell under the category of consumers.

It cited the Aashish Oberai vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd case, which highlighted that owning multiple houses did not indicate the commercial intent of a buyer.

The bench also referred to the Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd case, wherein it was held that the burden of proving a purchase for commercial purposes rested with the builder, requiring documentary evidence.

As for the builder's contention that the complainants failed to make timely payments, justifying the delay in possession and high interest rates, the State Commission observed that the builder had penalized the late payments despite the delay from his end.