The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on February 5 directed Unitech Ltd to compensate a flat buyer by refunding a sum amounting to more than ₹1 crore, after the builders failed to deliver the possession of the flat on time.
Complainant Joti Lal Khanna had alleged that despite having paid more than ₹1 crore while booking a flat in Gurugram in 2014, which the builders were developing, he did not get the possession despite a lapse of 36 months.
The NCDRC observed that despite providing sufficient time to the builders, they failed to submit their written response on reasons for the delay.
Refund within 3 months
Directing the builders to refund the amount within three months, at an interest of 10%, the NCDRC also asked Unitech to pay the complainant ₹25,000 as litigation charges.
“The builder’s buyers’ agreement executed between the parties show that the possession of the flat allotted to the complainant should have been delivered by July 2017. Since the possession has not even been offered to the complainants, they cannot be compelled to wait any more and are entitled to refund the amount paid to the opposite party,” the NCDRC said.
Referring to previous judgments passed by the commission in similar matters, the forum observed that contentions made by the builders such as shortage of labour, restrictions on the usage of groundwater, a slump in the real estate market, had all been dismissed.
“As regards, the alleged economic slowdown and consequent recession in the real estate market, the same cannot be a valid ground for delaying the possession of the flats to the complainant since some of the buyers made advance payments of almost 95% of the sale consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said, as far as this project is concerned, that the construction was delayed on account of funds not being available with the opposite party,” the NCDRC had observed earlier.
The forum also took into consideration the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the complainant, who stated that according to the agreement, in case of a default, the developer was liable to either refund the amount or provide an alternative property.
