KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT
FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
08860332402
FORFORWA@GMAIL.COM
Let
us fight for our right
On a mission to file 3 Lakh cases before Rera/NCDRC
to Help innocent owners
Dear Friends and Supporters and cheated
home Buyers,
These very notorious and influential
builders when confronted by we honest home buyers and the noise that we now
create for the inordinate delay in getting our flats, having paid most of
amount, will have to bow before us. We all will go all out legally duly
supported by our team of lawyers with bare minimal expenses as we all want to
get justice for the truth.
Also, it is high time that we all
who have been cheated get personally involved in eliminating this cheating
cancer spread by several cheat builders ruining 3,00,000 families. While the
cheating certainly is more pronounced in Haryana/NCR, several other states are
also affected making it an India issue.
Through our revered Supreme Court,
High Courts, NCDRC and the law is doing its best but time for every individual
to start fighting for his right and eliminate such cheating. If many builders
have to wind up, so be it after auctioning off everything to pay back home
buyers besides life time imprisonment. I look up to you all to kindly learn to
fight for your rights and I will support you till the end ensuring you get
justice.
The legal rights of the buyers are increasingly
getting recognised and grievances are being addressed and they should exercise
their legal rights and seek fair just compensation from the builders in case of
delayed projects.
The judiciary has started going beyond
the technicalities of the agreements and awarding compensation to buyers. In ALL
THE cases recently, judges have rejected one-sided agreements, citing
them as unfair trade practices.
Earlier, whatever was written in the
builder-buyer agreement was held sacrosanct BUT NOT NOW.
One thing is very clear now that buyers can
certainly take recourse to law against unscrupulous builders and seek just
compensation in case of delay in offering possession of flats.
Consumers should not be deterred by one-sided agreement
favouring builders, nor should they be deterred by superior financial position
of the builder as the law is with the common man. Consumer Courts and Apex
Court have come to the rescue of hapless buyers against the builders in cases
of delayed project
In most
of the cases delay in delivery varies from a minimum of one year to five years
and in some cases, even more.
In a recent case, the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked a real estate major to pay
buyers compensation at the rate of 12 per cent a year for delay in delivery of
flats, overruling the builder-buyer agreement that had set the rate at a mere
1.8 per cent a year. NCDRC said any unfair trade practice can be challenged by
it, even if there is a prior agreement between the parties. The best part is
that if the apex consumer court, NCDRC, passes such an order, it's binding on
the lower courts.
After the buyers dragged DLF to the
Competition Commission of India (CCI), things have changed. CCI found the
builder the dominant party in the agreement, so, the terms and conditions of
the agreement were not held as sacrosanct. Consumer courts started using this
line of thought and applied it more widely in builder-buyer cases.
In a landmark ruling, the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) 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 NCDRC also ruled that any delay beyond
the new deadline promised would draw a compensation of 18% per annum. Hence the
sooner we get the deadline fixed by the Honourable NCDRC, the sooner the
interest rate to be paid to us would go to 18%.
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 is what has been
ruled by the Honourable NCDRC.
Landmark judgement
This situation would have continued in India
but for the landmark judgement of National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, New Delhi in the case of Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. Unitech Ltd.
delivered on 6th June, 2015. The National Commission minutely
scrutinised the clauses of Builder-Buyer agreement in the above case and held
that a term of above nature in Builder-Buyer agreement is wholly one sided,
unfair and unreasonable. National Commission also held that such a practice
constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The National Commission held in the said case
that builder charges compound interest @18 per cent per annum in the event of
the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to the builder but seeks
to pay less than 3 per cent per annum of the capital investment is nothing but
it is unfair trade practice within the meaning Section 2 (r) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 as Builder adopts unfair methods or practice for the
purpose of selling the products. National Commission in the said case awarded
compensation at rate of 12 per cent per annum for period of delay in offer of
possession from the schedule date.
The commission awarded 12 per cent of interest
on the ground that the cost of borrowing for individual home buyers is about
11.5 per cent and thus, it would take care of the additional financial burden
on the individual home buyers on account of delay in handing over the
possession of the flat purchased by them.
The commission also directed that if a builder
fails to deliver possession by the last date stipulated in extended period,
thereafter, it would be pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent.
The National Commission has recently passed
similar order in series of cases namely Santosh Johari and Others Vs. Unitech
Ltd, Satinder Pal Singh Bawa Vs. Sahara India Commercial Co. Ltd., and Sahara
Grace Consumer Grievance Association Vs. Sahara India Commercial Co. Ltd. and
Others, Jivitesh Nayal & ANR Vs M/s Emaar MFG Land Limited & ANR,
Chhavi Mohna Bhutani & ANR Vs M/s Emaar MFG Land Limited, Rahul Kumar Vs
M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Rohit Sahai & ANR Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land
Limited, Sangeeta Sharma Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Kumar Rishabh & ANR
Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Rohan Sharma & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited,
Kumar Vaibhav & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Rajan Datta Vs Emaar MGF
Land Limited, Shaloo Srikrishna & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Salil
Mohan Gupte & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited.
Even the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amita
Dhanda and others Vs. Emrald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association on
30.7.2014 ordered the builder to pay the entire principal amount along with 14
per cent compounded annually in a case where the High Court has directed the
authorities to demolish the tower constructed in violation of law.
Warm Regards
For FEDERATION
OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
KULDEEP KUMAR
KOHLI
PRESIDENT
