No change in earlier order, says NCDRC judge to homebuyers

Shashi Kant Rattan Pal and others have approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for non allotment of flats paid and booked by homebuyers in Gurugram in a project called Canary Greens.

While the complainant wanted an amendment to an earlier order by Commission, Justice V K Jain on Monday (January 15) said that was not possible.

The complainants are the allottees of residential flats in Canary Greens, which the company is developing in Sector 73 of Gurugram. All of them were allotted one residential flat each in the aforesaid project and all of them entered into individual and identical agreements with the opposite party on different dates. As per clause 21 of the Agreements to Sell, the possession of the flats was to be delivered within 36 months of the execution of the agreement but the opposite party was also entitled to a grace period of six months for unforeseen delays beyond its control, including though not limited to delays in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate.

The possession of the flats having not been offered to them, the complainants have approached this Commission by way of these individual complaints. All the complainants have sought possession of the flats allotted to them or in the alternative a ready-to-move apartment of identical size in a similar locality or payment of the current market rate of similar houses which is alleged to be Rs10,000 per sq ft as the second alternative.

They are also seeking payment of rental value of the apartment and compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 18 percent per anum. They are further seeking compensation for the delay in delivery of the possession, at the rate of Rs 5 per sq ft per month as per the agreements to sell executed with the opposite party.

They are also seeking separate compensation for the mental agony and harassment alleged to have been caused to them on account of the deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering services to them, by not giving possession of the flats within the time stipulated in the agreements to sell.

The complaints have been opposed on identical grounds. The opposite party has taken a preliminary objection that since the agreed sale consideration was not more than Rs 1 crore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. It is also alleged that the complainants having delayed the payment of the sale consideration, they are not entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement by claiming possession of the residential flats allotted to them. It is also alleged that the construction of the flats has been delayed on account of reasons beyond the control of the opposite party including the failure of the allottees to make timely payment of the sale consideration.

In this case some of the matters were disposed of while some of the other complaints were pending because they do not come under the purview of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission.

Om Monday the complainant wanted some changes in the order which was passed by the commission on December 31, 2017. The judge, however, said that now there are no changes possible in order. The application was dismissed.

As carried in IL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *