PRESIDENT
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
CONSUMER
CASE NO. 427,430-440 of 2014
Versus
M/s Unitech
LTD (Opposite party –OP)
Para 19. For the
reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the opposite party
should handover possession of the apartments booked by the complainants on or
before the last date stipulated in the letter of the opposite party dated
27-05-2015. In the cases of those complainants who are the initial allottees of
the apartments or who acquired the same within one year of the initial
allotment, the opposite party should also pay compensation to them in the form
of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of
possession stipulated in the agreement till the date on which the possession is
actually handed over to them. The
persons who purchased the flats within one year of the initial allotment, ought
to be treated at par with the initial allottees, because atleast two more years
being still available to the opposite party at the time of purchase by them,
they could not have anticipated that the builder will not be able to honour its
commitment, as regards the stipulated date of delivery of possession. No separate compensation for the mental
agony, harassment and suffering needs to be paid by the opposite party to the
complainants. However, in the case of those complainants who acquire the flats
by way of resale more than one year after the initial allotment, the opposite
party should pay compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 12%
per annum with effect from three years from the date of the repurchase till the
date on which the possession is delivered to them. As in other cases no
compensation would be payable for the first three years from the date of
initial allotment of the flat. For the interregnum i.e. between three years
from the date of initial allotment and three years from the date of repurchase
by them, compensation shall be paid by the opposite party at the rate of Rs.5/-
per sq. ft. of the super area in terms of clause 4.c of the buyers
agreement. I am awarding lesser
compensation to those purchased the flat from the initial allottee more than
one year after the date of initial allotment, considering the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raje Ram, AIR
2009 SC 2030. In that case, HUDA
allotted a plot of land to one Madan Lal who deposited the 25% of the cost of
the plot. Later, HUDA notified revision of the price and gave an option to the
allottees to either accept the revision or receive back the initial deposit
with interest. Onn the request of the
allottee and the respondent the allotment was transferred in favour of the
respondent. Since HUDA failed to deliver possession of the plot within the
stipulated time, the respondent approached the concerned District Forum
expressing grievance against non-delivery of the possession within the
stipulate time. HUDA then offered possession of the plot to him and the
District Forum disposed of the complaint with a direction to HUDA to pay
interest to the respondent at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of
deposit till the date of offer of possession. Having been unsuccessful before
the State Commission and this Commission, HUDA approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by way of special leave. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
the respondent knew at the time the plot was realloted to him that there was
delay and in spite of that he took the re-allotment. It was held that the case
of the respondent could not be compared to the case of the original allottees.
The respondents were aware at the time of purchase that the time for
performance was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the original
allottee had accepted the delay. It was, therefore, held that the respondents
were not entitled to interest on the amount deposited by them. The persons who purchased flats more than one
year after the date of initial allotment, could foresee that the builder will
not be able to deliver the possession of the flat by the stipulated date. This is not their case that when they
acquired the allotment by way of repurchase, they had found that the builder
had already completed the development which it was expected to complete by that
time or that the builder had assured them that it would give possession to them
by the original date stipulated in the agreement. Such persons therefore cannot
be treated at par with the original allottees or those who acquired the
allotment within one year of the initial allotment.
Warm Regards
For FEDERATION
OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
KULDEEP KUMAR
KOHLI
PRESIDENT
No comments:
Post a Comment