News: NCDRC orders Pioneer Urban Land to refund home buyer's money-09-08-2019
Updated On: August 09, 2019
It is choice of a home-buyer whether to take possession in delayed housing project or to seek refund of his money and a builder cannot refuse to give back the amount on the ground that flat is ready, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has said.
NEW DELHI: It is choice of a homebuyer whether to take possession in delayed housing project or to seek refund of his money and a builder cannot refuse to give back the amount on the ground that flat is ready, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has said.
A bench of justice V K Jain directed a Delhi-based builder Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure to refund amount of Rs 4.43 crore to a homebuyer who had invested the money in 2012 to get a flat in Gurugram. The flat was to be delivered in 2015 but the builder failed to fulfil its promise and the buyer approached NCDRC in 2018 for refund of the amount.
Although the builder had constructed the flat and got occupation certificate from concerned authority just a fortnight before the homebuyer filed the complaint, the commission directed the builder to refund the money as there was delay of more than two years.
Referring to the judgements of the Supreme Court, the commission said that the builder had to refund the money as it failed to fulfill its contractual obligation of obtaining 'Occupancy Certificate' and offering possession to the buyers within the time stipulated in the agreement or within a reasonable time thereafter. It said that flat purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat as it was offered more than two years after the grace period under the agreement expired.
“More than two years and four months from the stipulated date had already expired by the time the Occupancy Certificate was obtained. Therefore, in this case as well the complainants were justified in terminating the agreement by instituting the consumer complaint ... the complainants are justified in insisting upon refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party,” justice Jain said.
The builder contended that the buyer had no justification for refusing to take possession and insisting upon refund of the amount and alleged that buyer had booked the flat for a “speculative purpose”. The commission, however, refused to credence to its allegation as no evidence was placed before it to prove that the flat was not booked for residential purpose.
It accepted with the contention of advocate Adity Parolia who appearing for the homebuyer submitted that in case of unreasonable delay, the choice will be with the buyer whether to take a belated possession or to seek refund with appropriate compensation.
The commission directed the builder to refund the amount with a simple interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum.
