Builder told to return money with 18% interest for incomplete flat
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered a leading realty development firm to refund, along with 18% interest, an amount paid by a buyer for a property booked in 2010 that is yet to be finished.Updated: May 17, 2016 09:27 IST
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered a leading realty development firm to refund, along with 18% interest, an amount paid by a buyer for a property booked in 2010 that is yet to be finished.
The top consumer forum’s order came on a petition filed by Delhi-based Aditya Laroria who had bought a flat in the Parsvnath Developers Limited’s Greater Noida project Parsvnath Privilege in October 2010, but had to date not been given possession of the residential unit that he booked.
Laroria had paid R42.37 lakh for the flat.
The firm “could not complete the projects in which the residential flats were booked by the complainant, either within the agreed time of thirty-six months or even within a reasonable time thereafter, and even today the project is nowhere near completion, the complainant is entirely justified in seeking refund of the amount, which he had paid to the opposite party,” said NCDRC presiding member Justice VK Jain.
The firm — which has property development projects in 42 cities aross India, was also told to pay 18% interest on the original amount to Laroria in order to compensate him for the five year delay, during which he could have presumably found another home.
During the hearing, the realty company represented by advocates Minakshi Jodhi and Rahul Malhotra contended that Laroria was not entitled to claim interest as it went against a clause in the Flat-Buyer Agreement.
However the NCDRC said that “the aforesaid clause, in our opinion would not apply to a case where the buyer, on account of the delay on the part of the seller in constructing the flat, is no more interested in the flat subject matter of the agreement and wants to take refund of the amount, which he had paid to the seller.”
The top consumer court said, “In any case, such a clause, where the seller, in case of default on the part of the buyer, seeks to recover interest from him at the rate of 24% per annum will amount to an unfair trade practice since it gives an unfair advantage to the seller over the buyer.”