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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Disease Caused By Insect Bite In The Natural Course Of Events Not Covered Under 'Accident' Insurance

In Civil Appeal No 2614 of 2019, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee, the interesting issue was claim accidental death from mosquito bite. The insured while working in Mozambique died of malaria and the insurer rejected the claim on the ground that the policy was for protection against personal accident and death from mosquito bite was not accidental death. However, the District, State and even the National Consumer Forum went against the insurer who finally appealed before the Supreme Court. The problem was what constitutes an accident. The NCDRC also noted that website of the Insurance Company, an accident may include events like snake bite, frost bite and dog bite. The Supreme Court looked into precedents set by both Indian as well as International courts while responding to similar issues and observed that in order to constitute an accident, the event must be in the nature of an occurrence which is unnatural, unforeseen or unexpected. The present ...
Post a Comment
Read more