Mumbai: a builder ordered to pay interest of Rs 69L for late possession | Bombay News


Mumbai: Ruling that if a builder is unable to give possession of an apartment within the agreed timeframe, then he owes interest to the buyer until surrender, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Runwal Homes to hand over a land of 1,215 -foot Nahur flat to a family in Kemp’s Corner and also pay them around Rs 69 lakh in interest on the amount paid so far. The commission said the builder can adjust the amount of interest relative to the family’s balance payment for the apartment.
“It was imperative for the opposing party (the builder) to complete the construction and obtain the certificate of completion and hand over possession to the owner of the apartment until March 2016. Based on the evidence additional … there is evidence that the certificate of completion of the building was issued on July 17, 2019. No allegations or evidence has been filed to show that due to force majeure or for the reasons mentioned … in the agreement, construction could not be completed within the time limit, ”the commission said.
The builder had terminated the agreement after the plaintiffs, Arun Kedia and his family, who had already paid Rs 2.3 crore of the total value of Rs 2.5 crore until August 2015, refused to pay more. until the builder has ensured possession after March 2016. time limit has expired. “Due to failures on the part of the opposing party (builder), the plaintiffs suffer prejudice. The sales agreement was illegally canceled and is in bad faith, ”the commission said.
The committee stressed that the agreement established reciprocal responsibilities for both parties. He said: “If the opposing party (the builder) has failed to respect the terms of the agreement and has committed a serious breach, then it cannot blame the plaintiffs for not depositing the down payments in. delays or within seven days of the problem. of the letter of formal notice.
The commission further stated that there was nothing on file to prove that the letters demanding that the installments were actually issued to apartment owners by March 2016. It stated that in letters issued in February, March and September 2016, excessive demands were made.
“Thus, the allegation that the plaintiffs committed a default in payment of the deposit for which the agreement was canceled, is not proven,” observed the commission.
He said the deal required apartment buyers to be given 30 days written notice before terminating the deal. “No such notice was issued … The cancellation of the agreement, announced in a letter dated March 15, 2017, was illegal,” he said. The complaint was filed in 2017. The Kediaes had reached the agreement with the builder on June 5, 2013. Possession was to be surrendered in March 2016. The Kedia, a joint family, wanted to move into a larger house and had benefited from ‘a bank loan.


Comments are closed.