NCDRC holds Sushma Buildtech Liable for deficiency in service
Real Estate

NCDRC holds Sushma Buildtech Liable for deficiency in service

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the presidency of AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that builders cannot compel buyers to accept possession of property after significant delays. The commission affirmed the buyer's right to either accept delayed possession or seek appropriate compensation. The complainant had booked a flat with Sushma Buildtech, and a Flat Buyers Agreement was executed specifying possession within 30 months (24 months plus a 6-month grace period). Despite receiving 97% of the sale price, the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. Dissatisfied with the delay, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the Punjab State Commission, seeking relief.

The State Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the builder to compensate at the rate of ?5 per sq. ft. per month of the flat's super area from the stipulated delivery date until possession, along with 6% annual simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 5.43. Additionally, litigation costs of Rs 65,000 were awarded. Aggrieved by this decision, the builder appealed to the National Commission. The builder contended that the complaint lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that the complainants, who owned another property and purchased the flat for speculative purposes, did not qualify as 'consumers' under the law. The builder denied any service deficiency, citing project development challenges such as labour shortages, sand scarcity, and demonetization. They maintained that all necessary approvals were in place as stipulated in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. The NCDRC observed that the complainants had paid Rs 6.42 million towards the flat, as evidenced by receipts. Despite fulfilling their financial obligations, the builder failed to meet the possession deadline agreed upon in the contract. Emphasising the rights of homebuyers, the commission referenced precedents such as Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan, affirming that buyers have the right to seek compensation for possession delays.

Modifying the State Commission's order, the National Commission directed the builder to pay 6% simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 6.42 million from the date the flat was due for possession until delivery. Additionally, Rs 100,000 was awarded to the complainants for litigation expenses.

(Source: Live Law)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the presidency of AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that builders cannot compel buyers to accept possession of property after significant delays. The commission affirmed the buyer's right to either accept delayed possession or seek appropriate compensation. The complainant had booked a flat with Sushma Buildtech, and a Flat Buyers Agreement was executed specifying possession within 30 months (24 months plus a 6-month grace period). Despite receiving 97% of the sale price, the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. Dissatisfied with the delay, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the Punjab State Commission, seeking relief. The State Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the builder to compensate at the rate of ?5 per sq. ft. per month of the flat's super area from the stipulated delivery date until possession, along with 6% annual simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 5.43. Additionally, litigation costs of Rs 65,000 were awarded. Aggrieved by this decision, the builder appealed to the National Commission. The builder contended that the complaint lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that the complainants, who owned another property and purchased the flat for speculative purposes, did not qualify as 'consumers' under the law. The builder denied any service deficiency, citing project development challenges such as labour shortages, sand scarcity, and demonetization. They maintained that all necessary approvals were in place as stipulated in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. The NCDRC observed that the complainants had paid Rs 6.42 million towards the flat, as evidenced by receipts. Despite fulfilling their financial obligations, the builder failed to meet the possession deadline agreed upon in the contract. Emphasising the rights of homebuyers, the commission referenced precedents such as Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan, affirming that buyers have the right to seek compensation for possession delays. Modifying the State Commission's order, the National Commission directed the builder to pay 6% simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 6.42 million from the date the flat was due for possession until delivery. Additionally, Rs 100,000 was awarded to the complainants for litigation expenses. (Source: Live Law)

Next Story
Equipment

Handling concrete better

Efficiently handling the transportation and placement of concrete is essential to help maintain the quality of construction, meet project timelines by minimising downtimes, and reduce costs – by 5 to 15 per cent, according to Sandeep Jain, Director, Arkade Developers. CW explores what the efficient handling of concrete entails.Select wellFirst, a word on choosing the right equipment, such as a mixer with a capacity aligned to the volume required onsite, from Vaibhav Kulkarni, Concrete Expert. “An overly large mixer will increase the idle time (and cost), while one that ..

Next Story
Real Estate

Elevated floors!

Raised access flooring, also called false flooring, is a less common interiors feature than false ceilings, but it has as many uses – if not more.A raised floor is a modular panel installed above the structural floor. The space beneath the raised flooring is typically used to accommodate utilities such as electrical cables, plumbing and HVAC systems. And so, raised flooring is usually associated with buildings with heavy cabling and precise air distribution needs, such as data centres.That said, CW interacted with designers and architects and discovered that false flooring can come in handy ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

The Variation Challenge

A variation or change in scope clause is defined in construction contracts to take care of situations arising from change in the defined scope of work. Such changes may arise due to factors such as additions or deletions in the scope of work, modifications in the type, grade or specifications of materials, alterations in specifications or drawings, and acts or omissions of other contractors. Further, ineffective planning, inadequate investigations or surveys and requests from the employer or those within the project’s area of influence can contribute to changes in the scope of work. Ext..

Advertisement

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?