‘Builders must fulfil the promises they make in their brochures too’

Shivpuri had booked a flat in Arihant Sparsh, to be developed by Arihant Enterprises, and paid 85% of the total sale consideration before May 2010, as demanded by the developer.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ruled that a developer is bound to not only fulfil promises made in agreements with flat buyers, but also provide the amenities mentioned in their promotional material. Based on this, the commission enhanced the compensation awarded to Vashi resident Ashok Kumar Shivpuri by the district forum to ₹3 lakh, from ₹25,000. “Any assurance given in the brochure is the initial promise made, based on which the flat purchaser makes a decision whether to purchase the subject flat or not,” the bench said, refusing to accept the developer’s contention that the facilities and amenities mentioned in the brochure were not stated in the sale agreement with Shivpuri, and therefore, there was no question of providing the same.

Shivpuri approached the local district consumer forum in 2013, complaining about the delay in getting possession and the lack of facilities and amenities promised by the builder in the brochure, such as a grand entrance lobby, terrace garden, swimming pool, health club and gym, among others. (HT image)

Shivpuri had booked a flat in Arihant Sparsh, to be developed by Arihant Enterprises, and paid 85% of the total sale consideration before May 2010, as demanded by the developer. Though the developer was supposed to hand over the flat by December 2012, there was a delay of around one-and-a-half years.

Shivpuri approached the local district consumer forum in 2013, complaining about the delay in getting possession and the lack of facilities and amenities promised by the builder in the brochure, such as a grand entrance lobby, terrace garden, swimming pool, health club and gym, among others. The district forum had accepted his arguments, but granted him a meagre compensation of ₹25,000, prompting him to approach the state consumer commission.

After the state commission refused to enhance the compensation, Shivpuri approached the national commission.