Compensation Beyond The Date Of The Offer Of Possession Is Not Justifiable: NCDRC

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant booked a flat with Shipra Estate(developer/opposite party), but the developer did not meet the promised possession date as scheduled. Acknowledging the delay, the developer compensated the complainant with Rs.1,35,815, and an additional Rs.1,07,231 was paid later. After a prolonged wait and effort, the complainant eventually obtained possession of the flat. However, even after sending a legal notice asking for compensation for the remaining committed period, including beyond the date of the offer of possession, the developer did not provide any compensation for that period. The complaint is an original petition filed by the complainant before the National Commission with a prayer to award compensation for the remaining period with an interest rate of 14%, along with appropriate punitive damages on account of mental agony and harassment. The complainant also seeks Rs. 55,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The developer contended that the complainants had already taken possession of the flat, and they were compensated according to the agreed terms for the delayed possession. The developer argued that further claims for additional compensation could not be considered, as they had already increased the delay compensation to 7% per annum, paid quarterly, from the initial Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month. According to the developer, the complainant was adequately compensated for the delay, and the compensation matter had been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction, making the request for additional compensation unacceptable.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed a significant delay in the flat's possession by the builder, determining that the complainant is entitled to compensation for the delay, referencing legal precedents such as West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devasis Rudra and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan. However, it was recognized that the builder initially provided compensation based on the deposited amount; however, this compensation was discontinued despite the possession being handed over much later. As per Supreme Court judgments followed by the Commission, compensation for delayed possession is typically paid until a valid offer of possession. Since the complainant accepted valid possession, the request for compensation beyond the date of the offer of possession is not justifiable.

The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the builder to pay compensation for the delay in handing over the possession of the flat with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the promised date of possession till the date of the offer of possession after adjusting the compensation already paid to the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

 Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Shanto Mukherjee

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. Chaitanya & Adv. Shubhanshu Gupta

Case Title: Rajesh Gupta Vs. M/S Shipra Estate Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 1881/2018