Do not expect homebuyer to wait indefinitely for possession of Flat, says NCDRC
October 20, 2017In order to rescue several home-buyers, NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) observed that if the builder fails to deliver the flat within the promised time, Homebuyer cannot be asked to wait indefinitely. Referring to the clauses of compensation in the developer-buyer agreement, the NCDRC considered it a case where the developer was unable to offer the possession of apartment, rather than a case of mere possession delay on the developer’s part.
The Bench comprising of Presiding Member Mr. Ajit Bharihoke and member Mr. Anup K. Thakur observed, "It is clear from the above that if for any reason, the builder is not in a position to offer possession of the flat, the developer company shall refund the entire amount with a simple interest of 10% per annum without further liability. It is undisputed that the opposite party was unable to deliver the possession of flat even after eight years of the expiry of promised date. Therefore, in our view, this is a case of the opposite party not being in a position to offer the possession of the apartment as the allottee cannot be expected to wait for the possession of the flat for indefinite period."
The observations were made on a complaint recorded by one Ms. Shalini Lambah against real-estate giant Unitech Limited for non-delivery of possession of a flat in a project in Greater Noida. Ms. Lambah had been issued the allotment letter in August 2006, after having paid an entirety of nearly Rs. 60 lakh to Unitech.
While Ms. Lambah complained that she had been "tricked by promises" that the apartment would be ready within a period of 36 months, Unitech had now contended that the delay was unintentional.
However, NCDRC couldn't accept Unitech's contention in view of the latter's failure to substantiate the plea with any confirmation and watched, "Learned counsel for opposite party has contended that delay in finishing the construction and delivering possession of the subject flat to the complainant was unintentional and the opposite party was unable to complete the construction and deliver the possession because of circumstances beyond its control. The opposite party's plea is unacceptable as despite having an option to record a written statement the opposition party has failed to do so and there is no confirmation to substantiate the aforesaid plea."
NCDRC also rejected Unitech's proposal to pay Rs.5/ - per square feet per month as compensation for delaying the delivery of possession of the flat, opining that this is not a case of simple delay as more than 8 years had passed after the expiry of the promised date of possession.
The Bench comprising of Presiding Member Mr. Ajit Bharihoke and member Mr. Anup K. Thakur observed, "It is clear from the above that if for any reason, the builder is not in a position to offer possession of the flat, the developer company shall refund the entire amount with a simple interest of 10% per annum without further liability. It is undisputed that the opposite party was unable to deliver the possession of flat even after eight years of the expiry of promised date. Therefore, in our view, this is a case of the opposite party not being in a position to offer the possession of the apartment as the allottee cannot be expected to wait for the possession of the flat for indefinite period."
The observations were made on a complaint recorded by one Ms. Shalini Lambah against real-estate giant Unitech Limited for non-delivery of possession of a flat in a project in Greater Noida. Ms. Lambah had been issued the allotment letter in August 2006, after having paid an entirety of nearly Rs. 60 lakh to Unitech.
While Ms. Lambah complained that she had been "tricked by promises" that the apartment would be ready within a period of 36 months, Unitech had now contended that the delay was unintentional.
However, NCDRC couldn't accept Unitech's contention in view of the latter's failure to substantiate the plea with any confirmation and watched, "Learned counsel for opposite party has contended that delay in finishing the construction and delivering possession of the subject flat to the complainant was unintentional and the opposite party was unable to complete the construction and deliver the possession because of circumstances beyond its control. The opposite party's plea is unacceptable as despite having an option to record a written statement the opposition party has failed to do so and there is no confirmation to substantiate the aforesaid plea."
NCDRC also rejected Unitech's proposal to pay Rs.5/ - per square feet per month as compensation for delaying the delivery of possession of the flat, opining that this is not a case of simple delay as more than 8 years had passed after the expiry of the promised date of possession.
Latest Legal News
3 Bills to Renew India's Criminal Justice System presented in Lok Sabha; All you Need to Know
âSorry state of affairs' in PoSH Act implementation; SC orders Govts. to ensure ICCs are constituted