Powai family to get ₹49L for 20-month delay in delivery of flat

Two members of a Powai-based family will get around ₹49 lakh as compensation for 20 months’ delay in delivery of the flat booked by them in Emerald Isle at Powai Estate

Mumbai Two members of a Powai-based family will get around ₹49 lakh as compensation for 20 months’ delay in delivery of the flat booked by them in Emerald Isle at Powai Estate.

Eventually, during the pendency of the complaint, in December 2018, the company offered possession of the flat and the complainant accepted the same in February 2019 (Bloomberg)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has recently directed the project proponent, Larsen and Toubro Limited, to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of ₹3.26 crore paid by the flat purchasers, Akshat Shetty and Raksha Shetty, for the period of delay in delivery of the flat.

The complainants had in December 2014 booked a 1,403-sqft flat along with a car parking space in Emerald Isle for total consideration of ₹4.13 crore. Under the apartment buyer’s agreement, the ready flat was scheduled to be delivered by March 31, 2017.

In terms of the agreement, the complainants paid an amount of ₹3.26 crore till April 2016, as and when demanded by the construction company but did not get possession of the ready flat on the due date. Therefore, in 2018, they moved the NCDRC, seeking directions to deliver possession of the flat and consequential reliefs, including compensation for delay in delivery of the flat.

Eventually, during the pendency of the complaint, in December 2018, the company offered possession of the flat and the complainant accepted the same in February 2019. In view of the delivery of the flat, the complainants had limited their prayers only to compensation for the delay in delivery.

The company opposed the prayer, claiming that there was no deficiency in service on their part, as the delay was caused by forces beyond their control – force majeure. The company claimed that under the agreement with the flat buyers, it was entitled to make variations or alterations, load extra Floor Space Index on the project and seek additional time for handing over possession on grounds of force majeure.

Besides, the company claimed that a refund with 9% interest per annum in case of delay in handing over possession was the only provision in the agreement and the flat buyers cannot take possession and also claim compensation for the delay.

NCDRC, however, rejected the arguments, observing that “it was for the Opposite Party (company) to have planned to apply in time for any other mandatory approvals to ensure adherence to its own timelines.”

As regards, the force majeure clause, the Commission noted that the company had claimed that it was required to obtain revised environmental clearance for loading additional FSI on the project. “In any event, the application for additional FSI would not constitute an unforeseen event or a force majeure event as claimed by the Opposite Party,” NCDRC said.