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)

Your next big infra connection is waiting at RAHSTA 2025 – Asia’s Biggest Roads & Highways Expo, Jio World Convention Centre, Mumbai. Don’t miss out!

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
Real Estate

Max Estates Acquires Gurugram Land for Rs 30 Billion Project

Max Estates Limited has secured development rights for a 7.25-acre land parcel in Sector 59, Gurugram, situated along the prestigious Golf Course Extension Road. The company announced in a regulatory filing on 6 September that it will develop a premium residential project on the site, with an estimated booking value exceeding Rs 30 billion.As part of the transaction, the company’s board has approved acquiring full ownership of Base Buildwell Private Limited (BBPL), the special purpose vehicle holding the licence and development rights for the plot. The acquisition remains subject to regulato..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

Vedanta Tops Rs 170 Billion Bid for Jaiprakash Assets

The Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Group has emerged as the highest bidder for the debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), surpassing the Adani Group with a Rs 170 billion bid in a challenge auction conducted by lenders, according to individuals familiar with the matter.With a net present value of Rs 125.05 billion, Vedanta’s offer marks the most substantial recovery plan for JAL so far. However, lenders, who have admitted claims exceeding Rs 590 billion, would still face a haircut of approximately 71 per cent. Despite other shortlisted contenders such as Dalmia Bharat, Jindal Power, and PNC ..

Next Story
Building Material

State Defends Cement Land Deal in High Court

The Assam government informed the Gauhati High Court that it had adhered to the due process of law while leasing 3,000 bighas of land to Mahabal Cement for the establishment of an integrated cement plant in Dima Hasao district.Appearing before the court, State Advocate General Devajit Saikia clarified that construction activities would only begin after obtaining clearances from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests as well as the Pollution Control Board. He presented a report from a government-appointed three-member committee which assessed the allotment’s legality, land suitability,..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?