Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

Collapse
X
Collapse

Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

Last updated: April 19 2014
4 | Posts
2571 | Views
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

    Hi all,

    I am creating this thread in IREF to compile the Various options available with Buyers for delay in delivery of possession and defective construction.

    This thread is not project specific but IREFians are most welcome to share the live examples where builders are compelled to compensate by relevant law in different situations, is most welcome.

    Regarding delay in delivery of possession I read some examples to quote later in this thread but for defective construction it's hard to find much example, which is not true by going through the way our builders knowledge about quality of construction.

    Hope we'll get some useful contribution by BlessU in this thread with documentary proofs.
    __________________________________________________ __________
    It is better to be blind than to see things from only one point of view
  • #2

    #2

    Re : Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

    Delay in delivery of possession and defective construction in the flat makes builder liable to pay compensation #Compensation

    In the judgment as passed by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta [Dated 05.11.1993, reported as AIR 1994 SC 787 = 1994 SCC (1) 243] the Court dealt with the issues engulfing consumers who puts in their hard earned money to make their dream of having own house a reality, but suffers in some way or the other at the hands builders – private or government. The holding arrived at in this matter can certainly be considered as timeless ratio and worth including in this category.

    The question posed before the Hon’ble Apex Court was to determine as to whether the statutory authorities such as Lucknow Development Authority or Delhi Development Authority or Bangalore Development Authority etc. constituted under State Acts to carry out planned development of the cities in the State are amenable to Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the event of they being questioned for any act or omission relating to housing activity like delay in delivery of possession of the houses to the allottees, non-completion of the flat within the stipulated time, or defective and faulty construction etc.

    The above issue was contested on the ground that the above named local authorities or government bodies develop land and construct houses in discharge of their statutory function, therefore, they could not be brought under the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) otherwise it would vitally affect their functioning as official bodies.

    The Apex Court while rejecting the above argument held that Act requires service provider to be more objective and caretaking more so when it renders public services.


    When private undertakings are taken over by the Government or corporations are created to discharge functions which otherwise are to be discharged by State, the inherent objective is to provide better, efficient and cheaper services to the people. Thus, any attempt to exclude services offered by statutory or official bodies to the common man would go against the letter and spirit of the Act and hence the government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much within the purview of the Act as any other private body rendering similar services.

    The second issue raised in the present matter was to determine if housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2 of the Act as it stood prior to inclusion of the expression ‘housing construction’ in the definition of "service" by Ordinance No. 24 of 1993.
    It was held that the entire purpose of widening the definition was to include:

    • Day to day buying and selling activity undertaken by a common man;
    • All such activities which are otherwise not commercial in nature yet they assumes a character in which some benefit is conferred on the consumer.

    Construction of a house or flat is for the benefit of person for whom it is constructed. He may do it himself or hire services of a builder or contractor. The latter being for consideration is service as defined in the Act.
    Similarly when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it amounts to service in the same way as is rendered by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and other statutory service.

    If the service turns out to be defective or contrary to what was represented, the same would amount to unfair trade practice as defined in the Act. Any defect in construction activity would mean or amounts to denial of comfort and service to a consumer.

    Further, when there is a delay in delivering the possession of a property i.e. beyond the stipulated period, the delay so caused also amounts to denial of service. Such disputes or claims fall under the category of deficiency in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade, as defined in Section 2(r) (ii) as unfair trade practice.
    If a builder of a house uses substandard material in construction of a building or makes false or misleading representation about the condition of the house there again it amounts to denial of the facility or benefit against which a consumer is entitled to claim compensation/ value under the Act.

    In an instance where the contractor or builder undertakes to erect a house or flat and there is a leaking roof in the flat, or a cracking wall or substandard floor, the consumer can accuse the contractor of denial of service.
    On the other side, when a statutory authority, like those named above, undertakes to develop land and comes out with a housing scheme, it in discharge of statutory duty is actually rendering service to the society in general and individual in particular or in other words it is a service to the citizens amounting to rendering of service covered in the expression ‘service made available to potential users’.

    A person who applies for allotment of a building site or for a flat constructed by the development authority or enters into an agreement with a builder or a contractor is a potential user and nature of transaction is covered in the expression ’service of any description’. Accordingly, any service unless it is free of charge or under a constraint of personal service is included in it.

    Since housing activity is a service it was covered in the clause as it stood before the year 1993.

    The consumer is entitled to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him and accordingly to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.

    Delay in delivery of possession and defective construction in the flat makes builder liable to pay compensation #Compensation | TCL :: The Chambers of Law, New Delhi
    __________________________________________________ __________
    It is better to be blind than to see things from only one point of view

    Comment

    • #3

      #3

      Re : Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

      Consumer courts must prioritise realty cases

      Pushpa Girimaji , PTI New Delhi, August 17, 2013

      The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 2013, which is expected to pave the way for regulation of the housing sector, has finally been introduced in the Rajya Sabha and referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Urban Development for review. However, it is anybody’s guess as to how long it will take for the bill to become a law and for the fast-track dispute redress mechanism envisaged under the law to become a reality.


      Till then, consumer courts offer the best solution for the myriad problems that consumers face in the housing sector. However, given the large volume of complaints against builders, consumer courts should decide these cases on a priority basis. Only then will justice be done. The Union ministry of consumer affairs should intervene on behalf of consumers and urge the apex consumer court to issue directions to all consumer courts.

      Earlier, consumers could approach the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) too for redressal of their complaints against builders. However, the government excluded unfair trade practices from the purview of the Competition Commission of India, which replaced the MRTPC, thereby taking away a valuable redressal mechanism that was available to consumers against builders.

      Now, a consumer can approach the CCI only if the builder has a dominant position in the market and has abused that position to the detriment of the consumer. That’s not all, we do not have a law to curb unfair terms in consumer contracts and so there is unbridled exploitation of consumers in the housing sector.

      I cite a few judgments, which may be of help to those looking for justice.

      The first in the list is of course the order of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta, (CA No. 6237 of 1990 decided on November 5, 1993) wherein it described delays in handing over possession as ‘denial of service’ and categorically stated that a consumer who is a victim of such delay is entitled to compensation.

      In Shri JL Sethi Vs Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society (RP No. 3129 of 2005, decided on August 21, 2006), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the view of the lower consumer court that a builder, who imposes an interest of 18 per cent on consumers for delayed payment, ought to pay the same rate of interest to the consumers in case of delay in handing over possession.

      In The Secretary, Southwestern Railway House Building Cooperative Society Vs K Velayudhan (RP No. 454 of 2011, decided on February 24, 2011) the apex consumer court made it clear that whenever a consumer withdraws from a housing project on account an unfair trade practice or delay on the part of a builder in handing over possession, he should not only get the full refund, but also interest on the amount. A builder cannot refuse to pay interest on such refund pointing to terms and conditions in the agreement signed with the consumer, the commission said.

      I must also mention that in the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs Brojonath Ganguly (April 6, 1986), the Supreme Court discussed unfair and unconscionable terms and conditions at length (though in a different context) and made it clear that it will strike down unfair and unreasonable terms in a contract.

      Sudhir Thadani: I am tired of waiting for the promised “ready to move in villas” near Rewari and now want my money back. How do I proceed?

      Write to the builder, asking for full refund along with compensation. If he does not pay, you will have to go to the consumer court.


      Consumer courts must prioritise realty cases - Hindustan Times
      __________________________________________________ __________
      It is better to be blind than to see things from only one point of view

      Comment

      • #4

        #4

        Re : Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

        Tata Housing Complaints

        A PDF file related to Tata Housing Complaints , can be taken as reference letter of communication between a buyer and builder to sum-up the complaints in a proper format ...

        Tata Housing Complaints.pdf

        Referene : http://alphaideas.in/wp-content/uplo...complaints.pdf
        __________________________________________________ __________
        It is better to be blind than to see things from only one point of view

        Comment

        • #5

          #5

          Re : Options With Buyers for Delay in Delivery of Possession & Defective Construction

          Thanks for the posts.
          ------------

          Please follow existing thread https://www.indianrealestateforum.co...delays?t=22627
          Posts copied
          Last edited April 20 2014, 10:02 PM.

          Comment

          Have any questions or thoughts about this?
          Working...
          X