Delay Compensation Should Be Given In Addition To Already Pre-existing Compensation In Builder- Buyer Agreements: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr Inder Jit Singh, held Raheja Developers liable for deficiency in service. It was held that delay compensation at 6% per annum should be given in addition to any compensation already outlined in the Builder-Buyer Agreement. Brief Facts of the Case The complaint was filed jointly by 11 complainants who booked units...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr Inder Jit Singh, held Raheja Developers liable for deficiency in service. It was held that delay compensation at 6% per annum should be given in addition to any compensation already outlined in the Builder-Buyer Agreement.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complaint was filed jointly by 11 complainants who booked units in the “Raheja's Shilas” project in Gurgaon based on various advertisements and promises by Raheja Developer/developer. After paying a substantial amount towards the total consideration, the complainants received allotment letters and entered into Flat Buyer's Agreements. As per the agreement, possession was to be given within 24 months with a 6-month grace period, but the developer failed to offer possession on time, leading the complainants to approach the National Commission. The complainants prayed that the developer pay 12% annual interest for delayed possession until the handover. Additionally, the developer is to compensate the complainants ₹5,00,000 for mental agony and pay ₹1,00,000 towards litigation costs.
Contentions of the Developer
The developer clarified to all allottees, including the complainants, that no compensation would be provided for delays in infrastructure or possession, as stated in the application form and agreement. Despite knowing these risks, the complainants proceeded with the bookings. Delays were attributed to government policies, infrastructure development, and legal constraints. The developer contended that the agreement terms were fair and binding, with the construction completed and the Occupancy Certificates pending due to external factors. The developer argued that the complaints were contractual and should be resolved in civil court, as no negligence was proven under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the developer claimed the complaint was time-barred and that the complainants were not consumers, as they already owned property.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the complainants' main prayer is possession, with a refund as an alternate request. The developer stated they are confident of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate (OC) within five months and would hand over possession, agreeing to pay delay compensation at 6% per annum. They would refund the principal amount with 9% interest if they fail. The complainants, citing Charu Sharma Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. and Santosh Narasimha Murthy and Ors. Vs. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Anr., argued for delay compensation at 8% per annum or 6% plus the rate mentioned in the Builder-Buyer Agreement. However, the developer referenced Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Vs. Raheja Developers Limited arguing for a 6% rate.
The National Commission allowed the complaint and ultimately directed the developer to obtain a valid OC within four months and hand over possession within six months, with delay compensation at 6% per annum and any compensation already paid under the agreement. The developer must also pay ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title: Amarjeet Singh Gadhok Vs. Raheja Developers
Case Number: C.C. No. 75/2022