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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more