Order Name: Parth M. Soneji Vs. Shree Sainath Enterprises Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd
Case No.: C.C. No. 740/2016
In a recent decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that a 6% interest rate on the deposit is fair compensation for delays in property possession. This case revolved around an agreement between the complainants and Shree Sainath Constructions for the purchase of a flat.
The complainants agreed to buy a flat with two parking spaces for a sum of Rs. 9,202,716, paid in installments. They took out a housing loan from the State Bank of India, and paid the full amount, including additional charges. The developers were obliged to hand over possession of the property within a fixed period, with a six-month grace term. If they failed to do so, they would need to pay the complainants a 12% interest rate on the paid amount.
However, the property was not ready on time. The developers acknowledged the delay and assured the complainants that interest would be calculated at the time of property possession. Though the complainants made additional payments, the developers refused to compensate for the delay, even after providing an occupancy certificate. The developers also demanded more payments and threatened to terminate the agreement.
The developers defended their actions, stating that the flat was ready for possession and that they had obtained the necessary certificate. They also offered the complainants an alternative accommodation or rent, but the complainants refused. The developers blamed the delay on issues that were out of their control, such as problems with the electricity department, a civil suit causing an injunction, and a shortage of building materials.
Upon reviewing the case, the Commission found that the developers were liable for the delay in handing over the property. The Commission referred to the Supreme Court cases of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020) and DLF Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association (2021). These cases established that a 6% interest rate on the deposit for the delayed period was fair compensation.
The Commission also addressed the issue of excess payment, finding that the complainants did not provide evidence of the cheques being encashed, so no refund was warranted. Furthermore, the developers failed to prove that the complainants had booked the flat for commercial purposes, so the complaint was maintainable.
In the end, the Commission partially allowed the complaint, ordering the developers to hand over the flat to the complainants within two months and to pay them a 6% interest rate on the deposit.
This case emphasizes the importance of consumer protection in property transactions, and affirms that developers must adhere to their commitments or face consequences. It’s a reminder that if you’re buying a property, make sure you’re clear about your rights and what you’re entitled to if things go wrong.
