Buyer misrepresented by ‘tallest building in the world’ claim, refund: NCRDC to developers

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that ‘the tallest building in the world’ claim was the only consideration for the buyer to book such an expensive flat. However, the developers could not construct beyond 89th floor because of lack of clearance from the Airports Authority of India (AAI), added the commission.

MUMBAI: Holding that the buyer was misrepresented by the claim that the skyscraper was the world’s tallest residential building, a commission has ordered city-based developers to refund ₹12.38 crore, accepted for a flat in “World One” project in Worli, with an interest of 9% per annum.

The developers claimed that “World One” was initially planned to be the tallest building in the world and the Urban Planning and Development Department had granted approvals for the same. However, the AAI placed restrictions on heights of buildings in the area to 284.29 meters in 2013 and subsequently increased it to 285.06 meters in September 2015. (SATISH BATE/HT PHOTO)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that ‘the tallest building in the world’ claim was the only consideration for the buyer to book such an expensive flat. However, the developers could not construct beyond 89th floor because of lack of clearance from the Airports Authority of India (AAI), added the commission.

The NCDRC has directed the developers to refund in two months the entire amount received from the complainant with interest from the date of respective receipts.

The NCDRC said though the flat booked by Damodardas Jewellers on 38th floor was not affected by the construction being restricted to 89 floors; the developers were liable to refund the money received from the buyer with interest.

The developers are Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd, which has since merged and incorporated as Macrotech Developers, and the Lodha Group.

“There was misrepresentation with respect to of height of the building on the part of the opposite party (developers),” said the NCDRC bench of presiding member, Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Justice Dr Inder Jit Singh.

“According to the complainants, the tallest (residential) building in the world was the only consideration for booking such an expensive flat in this project, therefore, the complainants are entitled to claim a refund of their money,” said the bench.

“Inasmuch as till today, the opposite parties could not obtain the sanction of the Airport Authority of India for raising the height of the building beyond to 285.06 metres,” the bench added.

“The said order has been passed on basis of wrong representations and facts. We will challenge the order in appropriate forum,” said a spokesperson for the Lodha Group.

Damodardas Jewellers had moved the NCDRC in April 2019, claiming that in November 2014, an agent of the developers had approached them and showed a lucrative brochure, which claimed that “World One” would be the tallest residential building in the world with several levels for parking and 117 upper floors of residential apartments with planned height of 423 metres.

They claimed the promotional material also vouched to provide scores of amenities, and based on these promises, the jeweller, in December 2014, decided to buy a flat measuring 2,044 square feet carpet area for ₹14.57 crore.

They paid ₹12.38 crore (which is disputed by the developers, who claimed they received ₹11.65 crore from the jeweller) till December 2016.

The developers responded to the consumer complaint, claiming that “World One” was initially planned to be the tallest building in the world and the Urban Planning and Development Department had granted approvals for the same.

However, the AAI placed restrictions on heights of buildings in the area to 284.29 meters in 2013 and subsequently increased it to 285.06 meters in September 2015.

The developers also claimed that the AAI restrictions were widely reported by the media in 2013 and had become a matter of public knowledge and all the buyers of units in the project were aware of the permissions granted for the project.

In any case, they maintained, the jeweller’s flat being on the 38th floor, they were not at all affected by the height restrictions and were bound to take possession of the flat. The developers also pointed out that the complainant had stopped further payments from December 2016, and now are entitled to a refund.

The argument, however, failed to impress upon the NCDRC. It held that the claims made by the developers were reflecting in their promotional material, but they did not tender any evidence to suggest that the restrictions placed by the AAI on height of buildings in the area were widely reported by the media and had become a public knowledge in 2013 itself.

The NCDRC, therefore, held that there was a misrepresentation as regards to height of the building and that the complainant was entitled to a refund.