Allottee Contractually Obligated To Take Possession If Offered After Issuance Of Allotment Letter: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya, held Panchsheel Buildtech liable for deficiency in service over delay in handing over the possession and directed them to pay the compensation for the said delay. It also held that allottees are contractually obligated to accept the possession if it is offered after obtaining the occupation certificate.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a villa with Panchsheel Buildtech/builder, paid an initial deposit, and later paid an additional amount. Due to the price hike, the complainants switched to a different villa and received an allotment letter under a 'flexi payment plan.' The complainants made all required payments, but the builder failed to complete construction or offer possession by the due date, repeatedly promising delivery within six months. The builder reduced the number of villas and diverted the land for multi-storied towers, launching other projects and misusing funds. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Builder
The builder argued that the complainant's allotment was changed at their request. Subsequently, the builder published notices about the layout plan change, to which no objections were received. Furthermore, due to uncontrollable delays, some amenities were reduced, but the villa's cost was not increased. The allotment letter specified tentative delivery dates, subject to force majeure, including farmer protests and planning delays. The builder denied allegations of fund diversion and unfair practices, citing an arbitration clause in the allotment letter for dispute resolution and claiming the complaint was outside the commission's pecuniary jurisdiction.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that various construction deficiencies were present, with some matching the specifications in the allotment letter, which the builder must address. There was also a dispute over the parking space, as the architect reported that the staircase extended into the basement parking area. The commission directed the builder to address the issues and provide appropriate parking space. The Supreme Court, in Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited Vs. Abhishek Khanna, held that if possession is offered after obtaining an occupation certificate, the allottee is contractually obligated to take possession. Despite the due date of possession passing, possession was delayed, entitling the complainants to delay compensation. From the onset of the pandemic lockdown, the builder is liable to pay delay compensation from. In Wing Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited & Ors., and DLF Home Developers Vs. Capital Green Flat Buyers Association, the Supreme Court awarded 6% interest on deposits as delay compensation. Therefore, the commission highlighted that the complainant is entitled to 6% annual interest on their deposit, excluding rebates, for the specified period.
The National Commission allowed the complaint and directed the builder to remove the deficiencies present and pay compensation for the delay at 6% p.a. on the deposit amount.
Case Title: Rahul Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 3750/2017