The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed real estate firm Supertech to refund the paid-up amount with interest to the home buyers. NCDRC passed the order on a petition moved by a home buyer couple. They had booked a flat in Hilltown Project of the company at Sohana, Haryana.
The bench headed by Dr. SM Kantikar directed the Supertech to refund the entire paid-up amount along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum within six weeks after which it will attract interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
The buyers had approached NCDRC through Advocate and consumer activist Monica Anand Kumar seeking a refund of Rs 88,82,001. This amount was paid by complainants against the total consideration of the flat booked along with interest.
Counsel for complainants submitted that the buyers Nilanjan Lahiri and his wife Shilpi Lahiri applied for a flat in the Supertech Hilltown project in 2014 under a subvention scheme. However, the builder not only failed to deliver the possession of the flat even after 8 years but also stopped paying pre-EMIs in early 2018 as per the subvention scheme. They were to get the possession by December 2019.
Counsel for the petitioners apprised the Apex Consumer Commission that an FIR has also been registered against Supertech by EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi in respect of the same project under section 406, 420, 120B IPC.
The complainants booked the flat for a total sale price of Rs 90,71,375. On 17 December 2017, they were asked to submit the booking amount. They paid Rs 5,00,000 as booking amount through cheque to the company. They stated that, in compliance with the terms of the payment schedule, the total payment made by them to the company till 1 April 2019 was Rs 84,82,001 and the company had issued a receipt for it.
In a rejoinder filed by the complainants, it was stated that on the date of filing the present complaint a paid-up amount of Rs 88,82,001 and including delayed interest if becomes above rupees one crore.
On the other hand, the objection of the company was that the term and conditions of the agreement are binding in nature is devoid of merit. They submitted judgments in support of their objection.
The company also submitted that the complainants are not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Act. They also raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction including pecuniary jurisdiction.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor