Buyers Entitled To Refund With Interest In Case Of Delay In Handing Over Possession: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya, held Assotech Developers liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over possession of the booked flat. It was also held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked a flat with...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya, held Assotech Developers liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over possession of the booked flat. It was also held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a flat with Assotech Developers/developer and paid the booking amount. The developer allotted a flat and agreed to deliver possession within 42 months plus a six-month grace period. The complainant paid about 25% of the sale consideration within four months and continued to make additional payments as demanded by the developer, totaling more than 100% of the basic sale price. Despite this, the developer failed to deliver possession within the agreed period. The complainant, having incurred a significant financial loss and ongoing interest payments on a housing loan, sent multiple notices to the developer requesting a refund with interest. The developer did not comply, leading the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Developer
The developer failed to file its written version within the stiipulated time, hence its right to file a written version was closed, later he was proceeded ex parte.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that, as per the agreement, possession was to be delivered within 42 months from the date of allotment, subject to force majeure. The complainant provided evidence of payments made to the developer, totaling a significant amount. The developer cannot withhold the amount deposited by the complainant. The Supreme Court, in cases like Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D' Limba, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession and are entitled to a refund with interest. The complainant also claimed delayed compensation, but as per the Supreme Court ruling in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, compensation cannot be awarded under multiple heads.
The National Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the developer to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with 9% p.a. with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Sudershan Goel Vs. Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Ltd.
Case Number: C.C No. 1955/2017