The higher rate of interest might take care of the financial loss but it cannot make up for other losses suffered on account of delay in possession of flats, said Rohit Sahay, one of the litigants in the case against developer Emaar MGF Land.
8% interest for delay
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has this past week directed the developer to pay higher rate of interest of 8% for delay in giving possession of flats for its Emerald Hills project in Sector 63 here providing relief to 11 litigants in the case.
Reacting to the judgment, Mr. Sahay, an IT professional, said that constructing houses was a “business for developers” but a “lifetime dream” for the common man.
“My daughter was around eight when I booked the flat in 2009, but I could not offer her the lifestyle I promised her because of delay in possession of flats,” said Mr. Sahay.
“Many among us wanted to settle in their own house before marrying off their kids. But their dreams remained unfulfilled. Eight years is a long period in one's lifetime, but we lost it as developer failed to complete the project in time,” Mr. Sahay said, adding that the commission’s verdict cannot make up for the loss.
Rohan Sharma, another litigant, however, stressed that the verdict had shaken many out of their slumber and around 150 people had contacted them and were mulling legal recourse against the builder.
“The verdict has a clear message for the builders that they cannot take anything for granted,” said Mr. Sharma, who works with a multinational company in Gurugram.
Rahul Kumar, a financial consultant, recounted how unit holders in the Emerald Hills project came together through social media after the developer failed to deliver the flats in the stipulated 30 months time.
Worked as a group
“We came together as an informal group, held meetings at the project site and corporate office of the developer. The developer made promises, but never kept them. In January 2015, around 60 of us decided to pursue the matter legally. A few of us, however, accepted the offer for enhanced compensation made by the developer,” said Mr. Sharma, adding that the legal process was not as “cumbersome” and “painful” as it is thought to be.
“We had to take time off from our hectic schedules to attend hearings and incur additional financial burden as well, but things become easy when your case is in the right hands. In our case, advocate Sushil Kaushik guided us well,” said Mr. Kumar.
‘Go to consumer court’
In a piece of advise for flat owners fighting for possession of their flats, Mr. Kumar said that it was always helpful to seek advise from legal experts and pursue the matter in consumer court than the civil court.
Mr. Kaushik said the commission’s judgment was “balanced” and he did not expect the developer to go for further appeal.
“The spirit of the decision is to make the developer complete the project at the earliest and compensate the flat owners for the actual loss incurred. The commission maintained that the flat holders’ payment to the builder was a deposit made with him and must attract 8% interest,” said Mr. Kaushik.
