Homebuyers Cannot Be Made To Wait Indefinitely For Possession

The complainant Alok Kumar was residing in Tokyo Japan and he was looking for accommodation in India. While going through the advertisements, he came across the developer’s advertisement of a residential project namely “Michael Schumacher World Tower” in sector 109, Gurugram. He approached the concerned developer and discussed the details and finally booked the apartment in the above residential project in the year 2012 for a total consideration of Rs. 4,12,98,926/ by 2015.  In order to make the above payment, he also took the Home loan of Rs 2,61,28,926/- @ 10.10% p.a. from HDFC bank.

A Flat Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the Developer and Complainant Alok Kumar in Feb 2013. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the apartment was to be delivered in 36 months with an additional grace period of 6 months from date of execution of an agreement, which came to end on August 2016.

In 2015, the complainant visited the site and was shocked to see that construction work had been completely stopped since January 2015. The complainant visited their corporate office and was informed that the construction had slowed down as the contract with the Construction Company had terminated due to some disputes and was assured that the new construction company would complete the remaining construction work and he shall get the possession as per the terms of the agreement by February 2016 or at least within extended period i.e. August 2016.

In April 2018, the complainant again visited the site and found that the construction is still not completed. Moreover, the site was locked. The date of possession and grace period of 6 months had passed, neither the possession was delivered nor the exact date of delivery was given by the developer to the complainant.

Finally, the complainant sent a legal notice for getting the exact date of possession of the Apartment but the same was received back with remarks “refused and left”.

In July 2018, vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant finally filed a complaint before NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) for a refund of the total consideration paid for purchasing the apartment. NCDRC after taking the agreement and other material into consideration held that the terms and conditions of the agreement are one-sided, unreasonable and unfair and incorporation of such clauses amounts to unfair trade practices in Consumer Protection Act 1986.  NCDRC also strongly observed that the complainant could not be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the apartment, construction of which is yet to be completed even after passing of more than 6 years from the date of booking.

In view of the above observations, NCDRC directed the developer to refund of Rs. 4,12,98,926/- with interest 12 % p.a to the complainant, till the date of realization.  The commission also observed that the above interest was awarded for the interest paid by the complainant on the home loan and also for mental agony and monetary loss. The Commission also imposed the cost of Rs. 25000/ on the developer.

 

See Also: