Real estate firm Supertech received order from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to refund the paid-up amount with interest to the home buyers.
The order was passed by NCDRC on a petition moved by a home buyer couple who booked a flat in Hilltown Project of the company at Sohna, Haryana.
Dr. SM Kantikar who headed the bench ordered Supertech to refund the entire paid-up amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within 6 weeks otherwise it will attract interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
The buyers who invested in a project approached NCDRC through Monica Anand Kumar who is an advocate and consumer activist, seeking a refund of ₹ 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 in 2014 the buyers Nilanjan Lahiri and his wife Shilpi Lahiri applied for a flat in the Supertech Hilltown project under a subvention scheme, but the builder failed to deliver the possession of the flat even after 8 years and 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 ₹ 90, 71,375. On 17 December 2017, they were asked to submit the booking amount. They paid ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 88, 82,001 and including delayed interest comes to above rupees one crore.
On the other hand, the objection of the company was that the terms 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.