Skip to main content

NCDRC orders Unitech to pay compensation for delay

In a landmark ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on Monday asked real estate major Unitech to pay buyers compensation at the rate of 12% per annum for delay in delivery of flats, overruling the builder-buyer agreement that had set the rate at 1.8% per annum.

The order came in a case filed by 24 buyers of a housing project, Vistas, in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. The buyers alleged that they had booked the flats in 2009-10 and delivery was promised in 36 months.

In his order, Justice V K Jain directed the company to pay compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount paid for the period from the date of delivery originally promised to the new date. The new delivery dates promised by the company are between February 2016 and February 2018.

The NCDRC also ruled that any delay beyond the new deadline promised would draw a compensation of 18% per annum.

"In order to ensure that the opposite parties honour the revised date of delivery of possession, compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 12% per annum should be paid by the developer if the revised date of delivery of possession is not honoured," the judge said.

A Unitech spokesperson told TOI the company hadn't seen the order yet and would respond only after it went through it.

In its last hearing in the case on June 1, the apex consumer court had rejected Unitech counsel Sunil Goel's contention that it did not have the jurisdiction to surpass the builder-buyer agreement.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/Consumer-court-orders-12-compensation-for-flat-delivery-delay/articleshow/47593071.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more