Dear All,
The recent order by the State Consumer Commission, should be used extensively and further while drafting out contracts or agreements, many such safe-guard parameters should be incorporated in the contract or agreement, for future benefits.
Please post your comments & opinions, over here.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
This was reported in "Times of India, dated 14 June'2010, Mumbai edition, page 01".
(read article, as reproduced below)
Builder fined Rs 20 lakh for delay : Consumer Court
Mumbai: In an order that will cheer property buyers, the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission recently directed a developer to shell out Rs 20 lakh at the rate of Rs 2,000 a day for a delay in giving possession of a shop premises to a purchaser.
The significance of the order—passed by a three-member bench comprising president S B Mhase, S R Khanzode and D Dhamatkar—is that it is “among the first times’’ that a “per day’’ damage, as was specified in the sale agreement, has been charged, according to lawyer Bindu Jain. The lawyer represented the aggrieved party, Dharshi Dedhia.
Often, builders have an agreement clause that assures buyers a daily damage for delayed possession, but few buyers, if any, invoke it, Jain said. The lawyer said the judgment comes as a boost to purchases of flats and other property across the state.
The commission said, “To issue notice for delivery of possession without an occupation certificate was an illegal act...We find that there is no ground to justify the delay.’’
Dedhia possessed a shop and godown in Rajhans building in Thane as a tenant. The original landlord sold the premises to Padmavati Enterprises who decided to redevelop the property and agreed to give a shop of 366 sq ft to Dedhia at a subsidised rate. The agreement was made in June 2005 to hand over possession in October 2005, but the possession was given in June 2007 without an occupation certificate. As a result, Dedhia claimed damages for the delay at Rs 2,000 per day as stipulated in the agreement.
Dedhia’s other grievance was that a water connection wasn’t given to him. He took up the matter with the Thane district consumer forum, which ordered the builder to pay him Rs 20,000 as compensation for the “mental agony and financial loss’’.
PAYING BY THE DAY
It is a rare case in which damages per day were claimed, and given
The complainant was a tenant who a possessed a shop & godown in Thane
In 2005, Padmavati Enterprises decided to redevelop the property and agreed to give a shop of 366 sq ft to the tenant within 5 months
However, possession was given in 2007, without an occupation certificate
State consumer commission ordered builder to pay damages to the complainant for the delay at Rs 2,000 per day as stipulated in the agreement
‘Bldr’s problems can’t justify delay’
Mumbai: In January 2009, the Thane district consumer forum ordered the builder, Padmavati Enterprises, to pay complainant Dharshi Dedhia Rs 20,000 for mental agony. No payment was awarded for the delay.
Not satisfied with the order, Dedhia appealed before the state commission. The commission went through the agreement and observed that it did indeed say that the developer shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs 2,000 a day for any delay in handing over the shop not caused by any natural calamity or act of God. “Commercial difficulties of the developer shall not be construed to be causes beyond the control of the developers or acts of God,’’ the agreement said.
The developer’s contention was that the old building was “in ruinous’’ condition and was on marshy land, which required piling work for about six months to make it strong. They also attributed the delay to “settlement of all the tenants’’.
The developer also said that Dedhia had done some illegal loft construction, which the municipal corporation had objected to and hence did not grant the OC. Dedhia denied the construction of any additional loft and the commission said the developer had no proof to show he had. On the contrary, Right to Information details showed that lapses by the developer had led to non-issuance of the OC.
The commission set aside the Thane forum’s order but maintained the Rs 20,000 compensation for mental agony and also directed the developer to provide a water connection to Dedhia.
