2 legal precedent (cases) supporting his claim against the Builder

Answer: 
  1. Arvind had purchased a 3-BHK flat in Mumbai from Goldfin Builders in 2015. He had entered into a registered Agreement with the Builder towards the purchase. Arvind was promised possession of the Flat on or before 30th September 2016. The cost of the Flat was Rs. 4 crores, which Arvind had entirely paid for. However, the Builder had not handed him over the possession till date. Mr. Arvind has the following queries:Can you help Arvind in identifying with at least 2 legal precedent (cases) supporting his claim against the Builder? 

 

Comments

BeingSkilled's picture

Since the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have come into existence, the consumers have raised their hope for the right judgment for the struggle they do with the companies.

Two recent cases supporting the claim against the builder are:-
1.Jaypee Resident society v/s Jaypee Group

Since Jaypee Group was delaying the possession in the project called “Kalypso Court” at Jaypee Greens, Sector – 128, Noida, the consumers were aggrieved and they filed a case IN NCDRC.

Buyer’s grievances were:

  1. Homes were supposed to be delivered within 39 months of booking while the possession was delayed by 4 years. Only structure was constructed in 8 years and the dates possession was revised multiple times.

  2. Buyers paid about 90% of the Value of property and are losing interest on it.

Following were the judgments:

  1. Imposed a delayed penalty of 12% per year for the period of delay ( 2-3% is what builder provides ).

  2. Imposed further penalty of INR 5000 per day per flat if the possession is not offered by 21st July ( i.e. within three months ).

  3. No stay was granted by National Green Tribunal as alleged by the Builder.

  4. There was no bottleneck in the construction of property.

  5. Further imposed INR 50,000 payable to each flat allottee.

  6. The stories shared by the builder, evidences put forward by them didn’t have a

    bone to pluck with the complainants.

As we can see, the intentions of the builder Jaypee Resident were not in favor of the purchasers, they got penalized by the NCDRC.

Case 2:

W/o of Lt Col (retd ) Anil Raj v/s Unitech Group

The Case:

The case is about the plot purchased by Wife of of Lt Col (retd ) Anil Raj in Aspen Greens project at SAS Nagar, Mohali in December 2011.
The cost of the plot was INR 3.34 crore and it was supposed to be delivered by December 2012.

Continuous reminders were sent to the Builder but they didn’t pay a heed to it. Thereafter, the complainants sent a legal notice to Unitech in August 2013 and later they approached the National Commission.

In September 2015, the NCDRC passed the Judgment to refund the amount of INR 3.04 crores along with 10% interest rate from the date of delay to the complainants. Since builder only refunded INR 45 Lacs, they imposed the penalty of INR 5 lacs on Unitech for disregarding its interim order.

Court also expressed that “ they wont have any hesitation in holding that the case is of gross ‘deficiency’ on part of builder in not delivering the possession of the plot in the stipulated period, subjecting the complainants to mental harassment, monetary loss ( loss of interest paid to the Home Loan Provider ), Interest income on the principle amount which would have earned otherwise.

The dishonest intention of Unitech Group was handled by NCDRC by directing the Unitech to pay INR 3 Lacs and deposit a sum of INR 2 lacs to Consumer Welafre fund.

Moreover, the apex consumer commission has directed Unitech Limited to refund INR 3.04 crores to the complainant along with the interest rate of 18 percent per annum for not delivering the possession of a plot.

According to the bench, “It is a fit case where, while sparing it from a stringent action of attachment of its assets, in terms of Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, exemplary costs should be imposed on it.”

After observing both cases, we can understand that cases are similar to the Arvind’s and NCDRC will take this case and provide relevant remedy for the issues being faced.