Pay ₹80L for 6-year delay in flat delivery, developer told

The developer responded to the consumer complaint contending that the construction activity in Mumbai had been stopped for over a year post-October 2010

A city developer will have to shell out ₹80 lakh for failing to deliver a flat to its purchaser in time.

The developer delayed giving possession of the apartment by almost six years (HT Photo)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) to pay the flat-buyer, Harsh Malhotra, interest at the rate of 8% per annum on ₹1.26 crore – the amount paid by him towards consideration for the 96.65 sqm flat in the Metropolis construction at Andheri (West).

Malhotra had booked the 22nd-floor flat in June 2009, and the developer was expected to deliver possession by December 2013. The complainant claimed that by the time of the scheduled delivery, he had completed payment for the flat, but the developer failed to give him possession in time.

In 2017, Malhotra approached the National Consumer Commission seeking a direction to HDIL to obtain the necessary occupancy certificate from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and deliver the ready flat to him. He also sought compensation for the delay in delivery.

The developer responded to the consumer complaint contending that the construction activity in Mumbai had been stopped for over a year post-October 2010 because of scarcity of sand and hence they could not complete construction within the stipulated time.

The National Consumer Commission, however, refused to accept the excuses for delay and said there was no agreement between the parties for the additional fixtures. It said that therefore, the developer was not entitled to the additional amount. The Commission has also directed HDIL to obtain the occupancy certificate from the BMC and deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within a month.

The Commission, however, rejected the complainant’s plea for a share in the profits earned by the developer by selling flats on four floors added to the high-rise building. He claimed that the building, as presented to flat purchasers, was proposed as a 27-storeyed structure, but the developer had added four floors to it without their consent.

In this regard, the Commission said there was no consequent loss or damage caused to the complainant on account of the additional construction and therefore he was not entitled to a proportionate share in profit.