Reasonable Period To Offer Possession Is Three Years If Not Specified In Agreement: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant booked a flat in a project by Purearth Infrastructure/Builder, promising modern facilities and possession within three years. Attracted by these promises, the complainant paid Rs.6166303 of the total Rs.6451500, with the balance due upon possession. Despite repeated requests, the builder did not provide a copy of the agreement and continued demanding payments. The builder assured timely possession but, despite receiving almost 95% of the amount, failed to deliver. They charged 18% p.a. interest for payment delays by the complainant but offered no compensation for their delay. After several unanswered emails, the complainant sent a legal notice seeking possession and delay compensation, which the builder ignored, leading to the filing a consumer complaint before the National Commission. The complainant sought possession of the space and delay compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the and Rs.25000 for harassment and cost of legal notice.

Contentions of the Builder

The builder contested that the complainant booked the unit after fully understanding the terms and conditions. They claimed to be making every effort to obtain necessary clearances for possession and denied making false representations. The builder said the complainant registered early due to the project's central location and was allotted a unit later, with a fresh application taken. The builder denied promising possession within three years and stated the agreement was provided and later returned for counter-signature under Clause 19 of the agreement. They argued that the delays were beyond their control and emphasized that the agreement does not provide for delay compensation. The builder assured that possession would be handed over soon and claimed to have replied to the legal notice, denying any service deficiencies and requesting dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the builder did not dispute the booking of the space or the payments made by the complainant, only the delivery of possession and delay compensation. The agreement between the parties left blank the date by which possession was to be handed over. According to the Supreme Court rulings in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D' Limba, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, if a specific date of possession is not mentioned, the builder must hand over possession within a reasonable period of three years. Therefore, Clause 19 of the agreement was deemed one-sided and unjust. The commission concluded that the builder was required to hand over possession by the specified date and is liable to pay delay compensation. They cited the Supreme Court decisions in Wg.Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and DLF Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association which held that 6% interest on the home buyers' deposits for the delayed period is appropriate compensation.

The commission partly allowed the complaint with a cost of Rs. 50000 and directed the builder to issue a fresh offer of possession and pay delay compensation in the form of 6% interest on the deposited amount from the specified period until the offer date.

Case Title: Mrs. Nutan Aggarwal Vs. M/S Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.

Case Number: C.C No. 295/2013