Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Rahul Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: C.C. No. 3750/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya, has held Panchsheel Buildtech responsible for a delay in handing over possession of a villa, citing a deficiency in service. The commission directed the builder to compensate the complainants for this delay. Additionally, it stated that allottees are contractually obligated to accept possession if it is offered after obtaining the occupation certificate.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a villa with Panchsheel Buildtech, initially paying a deposit and later additional amounts. Due to a price hike, they switched to a different villa and received an allotment letter under a ‘flexi payment plan.’ Although the complainants made all required payments, the builder failed to complete construction or offer possession by the promised date, repeatedly delaying the handover by six months. The builder also reduced the number of villas, diverted land for multi-storied towers, launched other projects, and misused funds. Consequently, the complainant approached the National Commission for relief.
Builder’s Arguments
The builder contended that the allotment change was made at the complainant’s request and that no objections were raised when the new layout plan was published. They cited uncontrollable delays for reducing some amenities but noted that the villa’s cost was not increased. The allotment letter mentioned tentative delivery dates, subject to force majeure, including farmer protests and planning delays. The builder denied allegations of fund diversion and unfair practices, pointing to an arbitration clause in the allotment letter for dispute resolution and claiming the commission lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission found various construction deficiencies, some of which matched the specifications in the allotment letter and must be addressed by the builder. There was also a parking space dispute, as the architect reported that the staircase extended into the basement parking area. The commission directed the builder to rectify these issues and provide appropriate parking space.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited Vs. Abhishek Khanna, Wing Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited & Ors., and DLF Home Developers Vs. Capital Green Flat Buyers Association, the commission emphasized that if possession is offered after obtaining an occupation certificate, the allottee must accept it. However, due to the delay, the complainants are entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court had awarded 6% interest on deposits as delay compensation in similar cases. Therefore, the commission ruled that the complainants are entitled to 6% annual interest on their deposit, excluding rebates, for the specified period.
Conclusion
The National Commission allowed the complaint, directing the builder to address the deficiencies and pay delay compensation at 6% per annum on the deposit amount.
Takeaway: If a builder delays possession, they may be held liable for compensation. However, allottees are contractually obligated to accept possession if it is offered after obtaining the occupation certificate.
