Home-Buyer Cannot Be Expected To Wait Indefinitely For Delivery Of Possession Of Flat: NCDRC [Read Order]

In an order that would come to the rescue of several home-buyers, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that on the failure of the builder to deliver the possession of a flat within the stipulated time, the buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely.

Taking note of the compensation clauses in the builder-buyer agreement, the Commission considered it a case where the builder was not in a position to offer possession of the apartment, instead of a case of mere delay on the builder's part.

Thereafter, directing refund of the amount with simple interest of 10% per annum, the Bench comprising Mr. Ajit Bharihoke (Presiding Member) and Mr. Anup K. Thakur (Member) observed, "On reading of the above, it is clear that if for any reason, the opposite party is not in a position to offer possession of the apartment, the opposite party company shall refund the amount with simple interest @ 10% p.a. without any further liability. It cannot be disputed that the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the apartment even eight years after the expiry of stipulated date.  Thus, in our view, this is a case of the opposite party not being in a position to offer possession of the apartment as the allottee cannot be expected to wait for possession of the apartment for indefinite period."

The observations were made on a complaint filed by one Ms. Shalini Lambah against real-estate giant Unitech Limited for non-delivery of possession of a flat in a project in Greater Noida. Ms. Lambah had been issued the allotment letter in August, 2006, after having paid a sum of nearly Rs. 60 lakh to Unitech.

While Ms. Lambah complained that she had been "lured by promises" that the apartment would be ready within a period of 36 months, Unitech had now contended that the delay was unintentional.

The Commission, however, could not accept Unitech's contention in view of the latter's failure to substantiate the plea with any evidence and observed, "Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that delay in completing the construction and delivering possession of the subject apartment to the complainant was unintentional and the opposite party was prevented from completing the construction and deliver possession because of circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party.  The plea of the opposite party is not acceptable as opposite party despite of having option to file written statement has failed to do so and there is no evidence to substantiate the aforesaid plea."

It then rejected the proposal to pay Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month as compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the apartment, opining that this was not a case of mere delay as eight years had passed after the expiry of the stipulated date.