Delayed housing possession and broken amenity promises can justify compensation beyond a one-sided contract clause.

In a grossly delayed housing project, a one-sided clause limiting compensation for delayed possession did not prevent a consumer forum from awarding just and reasonable compensation beyond the contract rate. Execution of a conveyance deed did not, by itself, waive the purchaser's claim for deficiency in service, though purchasers who entered specific settlements and transferees of rights were excluded from relief. Where the brochure and contract promised wider township amenities, failure to provide them justified compensation, but no breach was proved regarding the club house. Contractually disclosed tax-related interest, electricity charges and parking charges were recoverable, so challenges to those demands failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a flat purchaser was confined to the contractual rate of compensation for delayed possession despite a gross and admitted delay by the developer; (ii) whether execution of a conveyance deed or settlement deed barred a claim for compensation for delay; (iii) whether the developer was liable for failure to provide the promised amenities outside the residential cluster; and (iv) whether the demands towards tax-related interest, electricity charges and parking charges were unsustainable.

Issue (i): whether a flat purchaser was confined to the contractual rate of compensation for delayed possession despite a gross and admitted delay by the developer.

Analysis: The agreement was drafted by the developer and imposed a heavy consequence on the purchaser for delayed payments, while restricting the purchaser's remedy for delayed possession to a nominal fixed amount. The delay in handing over possession was admitted, was not shown to be covered by force majeure or any just exception, and amounted to a deficiency in service. A contractual clause fixing a token rate of compensation could not foreclose the consumer forum's power to award just and reasonable compensation where the delay was substantial and the bargain was one-sided.

Conclusion: The purchasers were not confined to the contractual rate and were entitled to additional compensation for delayed possession.

Issue (ii): whether execution of a conveyance deed or settlement deed barred a claim for compensation for delay.

Analysis: The developer had required purchasers to accept possession and execute conveyance deeds only on an unconditional basis, without any reservation of rights. A conveyance deed did not convert the housing transaction into a mere sale so as to extinguish consumer jurisdiction, and obtaining title could not reasonably be treated as a waiver of a claim for delayed possession. However, specific settlement deeds were different, and there was no sufficient material to show that those settlements were vitiated by coercion. Subsequent transferees also could not claim the same grievance as original allottees.

Conclusion: Execution of a conveyance deed did not bar the compensation claim, but the eleven purchasers who entered specific settlements and the three purchasers who transferred their rights were excluded.

Issue (iii): whether the developer was liable for failure to provide the promised amenities outside the residential cluster.

Analysis: The brochure and the contractual representations promised a wider set of amenities as part of the township project. Although the purchasers had no title to the wider township facilities, the developer had clearly projected those facilities as part of the inducement to purchase. The subsequent plea that the surrounding area had become urbanised did not answer the breach of representation. The club house, however, was found to have been constructed and no breach was established on that score.

Conclusion: The purchasers were entitled to compensation for non-provision of the promised wider amenities, but no relief was warranted regarding the club house.

Issue (iv): whether the demands towards tax-related interest, electricity charges and parking charges were unsustainable.

Analysis: The agreement expressly cast proportionate tax liability on the allottees, and the developer's recovery of interest on tax dues was not shown to be contrary to the contract. The electricity charges were also recoverable under the agreement and the relevant infrastructure cost recovery. Parking charges were separately disclosed in the brochure and included in the contractual price break-up for earmarked parking spaces. No deficiency in service was established under these heads.

Conclusion: The challenges to the tax-related interest, electricity charges and parking charges failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part: the consumers obtained enhanced compensation for delayed possession and for breach of the promised amenity representations, while the objections concerning the ancillary monetary demands were rejected and specified categories of purchasers were excluded from relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In a grossly delayed housing project governed by a one-sided buyer agreement, a consumer forum may award just and reasonable compensation beyond the contractual delay clause, and a conveyance deed does not by itself extinguish the purchaser's claim for deficiency of service.

---