Follow @Myfaridabad |
Site Announcements |
---|
Invitation to RPS SAVANA Allottees to join Case in NCDRC against RPS Infrastructures Ltd Have you submitted a rating and reviewed your project? Rate & Review your project now! Submit your project and review. Read Reviews! Share your feedback! ** Enhanced EDC Stayed by High Court ** Forum email notifications...Please read ! Carpool from Greater Faridabad to Noida Carpool from Greater Faridabad to GGN |
GURGAON: In an observation that may have far-reaching impact, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on Monday rejected the arguments of a real estate company that provisions mutually agreed upon in a builder-buyer agreement (BBA) are sacrosanct.
The apex consumer court was hearing an array of cases filed by 26 buyers who, in 2009-10, had invested in Unitech's Vistas project in Sector 70. Possession of flats was not handed over by December 2012 as promised, not an uncommon problem in the realty sector. Forty buyers then moved NCDRC in November 2014. Of them, cases of 26 complainants were listed for their final hearing on Monday, after a series of hearings over the past six months. The commission's verdict, though, is still reserved.
"The agreement clearly mentions the developer would pay 1.8% of the amount paid as penalty, in case of delay in handing over flats. When the same agreement was signed by each buyer, the court doesn't have jurisdiction to surpass that," said advocate Sunil Goel, who represented Unitech.
But the NCDRC rejected the argument on grounds that any unfair trade practice can be challenged by it, even if there is a prior agreement between the parties. "When the buyer is made to pay 18% penalty for default, is it fair on the developer's part to pay a mere 1.8%?" said Justice V K Jain, who heard the matter.
The judge also told Unitech's counsel that a 15% penalty can be levied on the firm during the interim period — from the promised date of delivery to the actual delivery date — but the lawyer pleaded inability to take an impromptu decision. Following this, the commission postponed the final verdict.
Unitech's counsel cited several factors like slowdown in economy, shortage in availability of labour and scarcity of raw materials, all of which were dismissed by the NCDRC. "When the company has already collected over 90% of the cost, why is it affected by the state of the economy? Most delays happen because developers transfer money collected in lieu of one project into another. This is a very common practice," said Justice Jain.
"As of now, the judgment is reserved. We can't rejoice until NCDRC gives its final decision. We're hopeful of a positive outcome, though," said Sushil Kaushik, advocate for the petitioners.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest