Skip to main content

Home Buyers Can Seek Higher Compensation Than Token Amount Specified In Contract For Delayed Delivery Of Possession

In EMAAR MGF LAND LTD vs GOVIND PAUL, a review petition was filed by the builder before the NCDRC against the order of the State Forum.

The complainant, Mr. Govind Paul, had entered into an agreement with Emaar in September 2011 for a property that was supposed to be handed over in 36 months. After a delay of about 20 months, Paul approached the consumer commission of Chandigarh seeking refund of his payment and compensation for the delay. The State Commission had ordered refund of the principal amount of Rs 38.9 lakh at 15% interest compounded quarterly and Rs. 3 lakh compensation to be paid by Emaar. It had further directed the builder to pay Rs. 25,000 to Paul as cost of litigation. The builder argued before the National Forum that the builder-buyer agreement allowed compensation of Rs. 5 per sq. per month.

The NCDRC while dismissing the review petition has ruled that builders cannot shield themselves behind the clause in the builder-buyer agreement to pay Rs. 5 per sq. feet per month as compensation for delay in handing over flats for an “unreasonable” period and that the buyers have the option to seek higher compensation after taking possession of the property, or seek refund of the amount paid.

Explaining that the builder would have to hand over possession within 36 months and that only a “short reasonable delay” would attract the token compensation provided for in the agreement, it asserted that the two natural corollaries flow from this assertion: 1. the consumer-complainant has the fundamental option to obtain the possession of the unit as and when it is offered by the builder and in addition seek equitable and just compensation for the delay; or 2. the consumer-complainant can claim refund of the principal amount; interest thereon; compensation; and cost of litigation if the offering of possession of the unit is unreasonably delayed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more