National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naveditta Dhawan v. United Limited
Higher rate of interest on failure to deliver possession within stipulated time
Worldwide recession or crunch in real estate business do not fall under the Force Majeure circumstances
Appellant/complainant, booked a residential property, being developed by Respondent Builder. An agreement to this effect was executed between parties. Opposite Parties were required to deliver the possession of said property within 36 months of the agreement. However, Opposite Party builder in the affidavit filed by it before State Commission in reply to the Consumer Complaint, stated that the new agreement was a fresh agreement executed between parties. Opposite Party had agreed to deliver the possession of property within 18 months of the signing of the new agreement, but said period was subject to Force Majeure circumstances.
It is the duty of a builder to have proper assessment of the market conditions at the time of launching a Project and making Project Report, etc. and they are supposed to take into account the relevant factors regarding fluctuations in the economy of the country from time to time. A builder cannot just accept huge amounts of money from gullible investors and merrily make use of the same, taking the plea that there was recession in the economy and hence, the building could not be constructed within the stipulated time. Opposite Parties have not been able to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in construction and consequent delivery of possession to the complainant.
Commission held that it shall be proper and in the interest of justice, if the Opposite Party delivers the possession of the property within 6 months from today. In case, the Opposite Party is not in a position to deliver the property within time as stipulated above, they shall be liable to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant to her, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of actual payment.
Unitech Ltd. vs. Vivek Prakash; Subhash Chander Mahajan & Anr. vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.; Satish Kumar Pandey vs. Unitech Ltd.