Pune: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said a builder’s failure to complete the project and deliver possession within a reasonable period “clearly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice”.“A homebuyer cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession and, in case of an inordinate delay in completion of the project, the consumer is entitled to seek refund with appropriate interest and compensation,” the NCDRC bench of Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and member Sadhna Shanker said on July 14, citing a Supreme Court (SC) ruling of 2020.The bench set a three-month deadline for city-based Kakade Construction Company Private Limited to hand over possession of two flats booked in June 2006 by a doctor couple in the “Kakade City” project in Hingane (Budruk). In case of failure to hand over the possession, the company must refund Rs3.01 lakh, along with an interest at 15% per annum, the order stated. The couple had paid the sum two decades ago towards the flats’ booking amount and first instalment.Advocate Dnyanaraj G Sant, representing the complainant, told TOI, “The bench has determined the rate of interest based on a clause in the registered agreement between the couple and the construction company. It stated that the purchaser shall pay interest at 15% per annum to the builder for delayed payments.”The Supreme Court has held that where the agreement provides for a high rate of interest against the purchaser for default, the builder cannot insist upon a substantially lower rate while refunding the amount to the purchaser, as such one-sided contract stipulations are unconscionable.Sant said, “The interest payable, so far, on Rs3.01 lakh works out to an estimated Rs9 lakh and will continue to grow till actual realisation. We will wait for three months to enable the construction firm to execute the NCDRC order and will decide, thereafter, on going for an execution proceeding if the order is not implemented. We will also see if the firm appeals this order before the Supreme Court.”The construction company did not file any written version on merits to controvert the complainant’s allegations despite repeated reminders. The NCDRC on Nov 24, 2016, closed the firm’s right to file such a written version.The bench, while referring to the unrebutted pleadings and the complainant’s affidavit of evidence on record, noted that the builder failed to complete the construction and hand over possession of the subject flats within the contract period — December 12, 2007. “Nearly two decades have elapsed and admittedly neither possession has been delivered nor has any occupancy certificate been obtained. The opposite party (builder) has also not raised any stage-wise demand for the balance consideration,” the bench noted.
