Skip to main content

Unitech to reimburse rent to buyer for delay in giving flat - NCDRD

Realty major Unitech Ltd has been directed by the apex consumer commission to reimburse nearly Rs 14 lakh spent by a customer on rent after the flat for which he paid over Rs 1.37 crore in 2007 was not handed over to him till date.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also pulled up the real estate major and its top officials, Executive Chairman Ramesh Chandra and Managing Directors Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, saying "even after lapse of six years the flats are not ready".

"It is clear that the opposite parties (Unitech and its officials) want to have benefit of both the worlds. They have received the entire price of the apartment at the time of execution of the agreement. Even after the lapse of six years, the flats are not ready.

"The opposite parties have offered peanuts for delaying construction of work. They have to honour their commitment," a bench headed by Justice J M Malik said, giving six months time to Unitech to hand over the flat in one of its residential townships in Gurgaon to Sanjay Goyal.

The bench said that after the period of six months is over, Unitech will have to pay Rs 25,000 for every additional month of delay in handing over possession and awarded Gurgaon resident Goyal Rs 50,000 as compensation.

The NCDRC also directed Unitech to reimburse the rent of Rs 42,500 per month from October 2010 to August 2012 (Rs 9.35 lakh) and Rs 50,000 from September 2012 to May 2013 (Rs 4.5 lakh) paid by Goyal.

The commission also directed the real estate company to pay the current rent of Rs 50,000 per month being paid by Goyal for the time it takes to hand over possession of the flat.

In his complaint, Goyal alleged that he had in September 2007 paid Rs 1,37,89,069 to Unitech for a flat in one of its housing projects 'Harmony' at 'Nirvana Country' residential township in Sector 50, Gurgaon, Haryana and as per the buyers agreement he was to get possession of the unit by September 2010.

Till date the possession had not been handed over to him, Goyal had said.

Unitech had offered to pay Goyal Rs 7.5 per square feet as holding charges for the delay in handing over possession or to refund entire amount paid by him with interest of 15 per cent, but he had refused to settle, the NCDRC noted.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Unitech-to-reimburse-rent-to-buyer-for-delay-in-giving-flat/articleshow/20407924.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more