Case Title: Mohan Shyam Dubey Vs. M/S Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 787/2017
A recent ruling by Justice A. P. Sahi at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has found real estate firm Emaar MGF Land guilty of not providing timely service. The crux of the case revolved around the company’s inability to deliver a flat to the buyer within the agreed timeframe.
The story unfolds with the complainant purchasing a flat in the Gurgaon Greens project by Emaar MGF Land. After paying the initial amount, the buyer was left waiting as the property wasn’t ready within the agreed duration since the construction began, even after considering a grace period. As the due delivery date passed, the builder neither completed the project nor handed over the possession. Instead, the builder started demanding more money, which the buyer refused to pay. This led the complainant to approach the National Commission, seeking either the possession of the flat or a complete refund along with interest, damages, and other related costs.
Emaar MGF Land Limited, the builder, defended its position by stating that the buyer had stopped making payments after a point, which led to the current dispute. The builder stated that they had commenced the construction during a certain period and had made efforts to complete the formalities required to hand over the property, including obtaining the occupancy certificate. The builder further stated that since they were ready to provide the possession, the buyer was not eligible for a refund but could only seek compensation for any delay as per the agreement.
The Commission, however, saw the situation differently. It noted that while the builder admitted to delays owing to internal partner disputes and some unavoidable conditions such as the non-availability of the occupancy certificate, recent Supreme Court judgments no longer consider these as valid defenses. The Commission referenced cases like Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors and Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited & Ors. These judgments clearly state that any delay due to non-delivery of possession to the buyer shouldn’t be to their disadvantage, and they can’t be forced to either wait indefinitely for the possession or make payments when the project hasn’t started on time. The Commission also referred to the Supreme Court’s verdict in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, which underlines the same principle and upholds the buyer’s rights in such situations.
In this case, the Commission found that the buyer had made the last payment on a certain date, and there were no dues pending as per the builder’s accounts. The Commission deemed the builder’s delay as a significant disappointment for the flat buyers. As a result, the Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the builder to refund the full amount of Rs. 40,53,443 with an annual interest rate of 9%, and an additional Rs. 50,000 for litigation expenses.
This judgment plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of buyers and serves as a reminder that delays in property delivery can’t be used to disadvantage the buyers.
