Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,_Turmoil over common areas in Condominium

Demolition of allegedly unauthorised shops put up by the residents' association in Heritage City, Gurgaon cloaks the more important issue: who should own common areas in group housing complexes in the state? This is a matter of contention between the builders and many of the housing societies in Gurgaon. The government's response to all such disputes is either to brush them under the carpet, or side with the developers while taking full advantage of the weaknesses in the legislation.

The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act (HAOA) was passed to give the residents of housing complexes in the state the right and the wherewithal to administer the colonies through their elected representatives. The spirit of the Act requires that once the area has been handed over to the owners' body, all common areas and facilities, too, should be transferred to them. That the law says as well. But in a clever twist of legalese it leaves it to the builder to declare in the declaration he files under the Act what constitutes 'common areas'.

In the broad scheme of the HAOA, only three kinds of properties are mentioned as components of any gated colony: general common areas, limited common areas and private residences. Whatever facilities - be it shops, club, school or any other - which the builders try to hold on to, or sell or lease to private parties, would be classified as private commercial properties and there is no provision for them in the law. This is a point made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in their judgment in the Silver Oaks case.

That verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013. The apex court had two important observations to make. One, that the licensed area in which the group housing complex known as Silver Oaks is located also has plotted areas of DLF I in it, hence the residential society of this complex alone cannot take control of all common facilities. The court said: "The colonizer could not have included the community and commercial facilities (in the declaration) because the same is meant for the benefit of the entire colony, which takes in plotted area and the group housing society's area as well." Logically it means that residents of plotted areas outside too can avail of the common facilities in the gated complex! In any case this situation is a rarity.

Second, the court said that the statute has given a discretion to the colonizer to include whatever facilities he desired in the common list because they were built by him 'at his own cost' so he could do what he liked with them. If this means that the cost of constructing these facilities was not added to the selling price of the apartments, not enough evidence was produced before the court to establish this. And even if it is correct in accounting terms, it is contrary to the spirit of the law.

Unfortunately, the building sector is not known for transparency of its accounts. But the government can still set up a mechanism by which the correct cost of building these structures can be ascertained and the apartment owners' associations given the option of buying them off. And for the future, the law must be amended unequivocally to give societies of apartment owners full control over all facilities. If that means that developers will load the cost of constructing them on the buyers (which they may have done in the past, too, but keep this fact cleverly hidden), so be it. At least this matter will be removed from the list of contentious issues that bedevil the realty sector.

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/gurgaon/turmoil-over-common-areas-in-condominium/articleshow/61921715.cms

Friday, December 1, 2017

NCDRC_deemed to have condoned the default

NCDRC has recently delivered judgment dated 21-11-2017 in CC No. 1730 OF 2016 tilted as PRAVEEN @ PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR v/s  EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. & ANR by adopting “deemed condoned theory” against the builder instead of customer. Below is the relevant Para of the judgement:  

5.   As regards, the alleged default on the part of the complainant, it would be seen form the payment plan agreed between the parties that 65% of the BSP was required to be paid by the start of 4th floor work.  The (viii) installment was payable at the start of the 7th floor work, (ix) installment was payable at the start of 10th floor (x) installment was payable at the start of 12th floor work.  The complainant made last payment in July, 2015, as would be evident from the Sales Customer Ledger of the opposite party.  He paid more than 65% of the Basic Sale Price by that date.  There is no evidence or even an allegation that 7th floor work had already started by the time last payment was made by the complainant.  The written version filed by the opposite party does not show when the 7th floor work, 10th floor work and 12th floor work started.  It is also not known whether the aforesaid work started before filing of this complaint or after filing of this complaint.  In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, and the proof thereof, the complainant cannot be said to be a defaulter in payment of viii, ix and x installments.  In any case, if the complainant was in default in making payment, the opposite party ought to have cancelled his installment and could even have forfeit the Earnest Money as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers agreement.  That having not been done, the opposite party is deemed to have condoned the aforesaid default.  Consequently, the relief sought by the complainant cannot be denied on account of the aforesaid alleged defaults.





NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 1730 OF 2016


1. PRAVEEN @ PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
E-184, 2ND FLOOR, NARAINA VIHAR, OPPOSITE GYAN MANDIR PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEW DELHI-110028
2. .
.
.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus

1. EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. & ANR.
(THROUGH ITS MD) B-100, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1,
DELHI-110028
2. EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.
EARTH COPIA, SECTOR 112, GURGAON, HARYANA.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate
Ms. Prerna Chopra, Advocate
Mr. Viren Kapur, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Himanshu, Advocate for
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate

Dated : 21 Nov 2017
ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)     


The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely ‘Earth Copia’, which the opposite party was to develop in Sector-112 of Gurgaon.  The opposite party allotted residential Unit No.404 in Tower G having super area of 1835 sq. ft. to him for a consideration of Rs.81,78,580/-.  The complainants having opted for a construction linked payment plan, the aforesaid amount was payable in the following manner:      
  1. At the time of booking : 10% of the BSP
(ii)      Within 45 days from booking : 15% of the BSP
  1. Within 120 days from booking : 10% of the BSP plus 50% of   the EDC and IDC



  1. At start of Excavation Work : 10% of the BSP
  1. At start of Basement Slab : 10% of the BSP plus 50% of the EDC and IDC
  1. At start of 2nd floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start of 04th floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start of 07th floor work : 5% of the BSP plus 50% of  3rd and 4th floor PLC plus 50% of Park Facing PLC plus 50% of road / corner facing PLC
  1. At start of 10th floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start 12th floor work: 5% of BSP
  1. At the start of 14th Floor work : 5% of the BSP
  1. At start of Internal Plaster : 5% of the BSP plus 50% of 3rd and 4th floor PLC plus 50% of Park Facing PLC plus 50% of road / corner facing PLC
  1. On laying of flooring : 5% of the BSP
  1. On offer of Possession : 5% plus 100% of ECC plus 100% of IFMS plus 100% of EEC and FFC plus 100% of Power back-up charges”.
2.      The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.58,74,142.00 to the opposite party in installments, the last payment having been made on 25.7.2015. The possession as per the buyers agreement dated 31.05.2012 was to be delivered within three years from the execution of the said agreement, though the opposite party was allowed a grace period of six months.  Thus, including the grace period, the possession ought to have been delivered by 30.11.2015.  The grievance of the complainant is that despite they having paid a sum of Rs.58,74,142.00 to the opposite party, the construction of the flat allotted to him is not even complete.  The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the entire amount paid along with compensation the form of simple of interest.
3.      The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has taken a preliminary objection that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is also alleged that the complainant has defaulted in making payment in terms of the payment plan agreed by him since 80% of the sale consideration has become due from him.  It is further stated in the reply to the complaint that the construction has already reached upto 12th floor.  It is however, not disputed that the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant is not complete, though the learned counsel for the opposite party states that the construction is likely to be completed by April, 2018.  He further states that the Directors of the opposite party are already in custody.
4.      In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, where the value of the goods or services, as the case may, and the compensation, if any, claimed by the complainants exceeds Rupees one crore.  As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such cases means, the aggregate consideration agreed to be paid by the buyer to the builder.  Therefore, the agreed sale consideration in this case, being Rs.81,78,580/-, the aforesaid would be value of the services hired or availed by the complainant.  If compensation claimed by the complainant is added to the aforesaid amount, the aggregate comes to more than Rupees one crore.  This Commission therefore possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
5.      As regards, the alleged default on the part of the complainant, it would be seen form the payment plan agreed between the parties that 65% of the BSP was required to be paid by the start of 4th floor work.  The (viii) installment was payable at the start of the 7th floor work, (ix) installment was payable at the start of 10th floor (x) installment was payable at the start of 12th floor work.  The complainant made last payment in July, 2015, as would be evident from the Sales Customer Ledger of the opposite party.  He paid more than 65% of the Basic Sale Price by that date.  There is no evidence or even an allegation that 7th floor work had already started by the time last payment was made by the complainant.  The written version filed by the opposite party does not show when the 7th floor work, 10th floor work and 12th floor work started.  It is also not known whether the aforesaid work started before filing of this complaint or after filing of this complaint.  In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, and the proof thereof, the complainant cannot be said to be a defaulter in payment of viii, ix and x installments.  In any case, if the complainant was in default in making payment, the opposite party ought to have cancelled his installment and could even have forfeit the Earnest Money as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers agreement.  That having not been done, the opposite party is deemed to have condoned the aforesaid default.  Consequently, the relief sought by the complainant cannot be denied on account of the aforesaid alleged defaults.
6.      It is an admitted position that the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant is not complete even till date, though more than two years have already expired from the time period stipulated for completing the said construction.  The complainant therefore cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat allotted to him.  This is more so, considering the situation where even the Directors of the builder company are said to be in judicial custody.  The complainants therefore are entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by them along with appropriate compensation.
7.      The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions from one of the complainants, who is present in the Court, that though the complainants have claimed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 24% per annum, they in order to avoid further litigation in the matter are restricting their claim to refund of the principal amount paid by them along with compensation in the form interest @ 10% per annum and the cost of litigation.
8.      The complaint is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i)      The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.58,74,142.00 received from the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount long with compensation in the form of simple interest is refunded.
(ii)      The opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants
(iii)     The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.
         


......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER


Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Section 12 (1) (c) of CP Act_Meaning of same interest_different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years

Below is the judgment of NCDRC wherein the Hon’ble Commission said  “…In the case in hand, different complainants have booked their apartments/ units for different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years.  In such circumstances, it cannot be held that each complainant has got same interest on same terms & conditions………”



NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 656 OF 2015


1. ANKUR GOSWAMI & 13 ORS.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus

1. SUPERTECH LIMITED & ANR.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Shri Kumar Dushyant Singh &
Shri Shravan Kumar Yammanur,
Advocates.

For the Opp.Party :

Dated : 05 May 2016
ORDER
Pronounced on   5th May, 2016

ORDER

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
          This complaint has been filed by 14 complainants against opposite party alongwith application under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.
          Brief facts of the case are that complainants are buyers/allottees/ owners/ consumers who have booked/purchased apartments/units in opposite party project after making initial payments.  Complaint has been filed through complainant No. 1 to act as representative on behalf of all the complainants having same interest.  It was further submitted that complainants booked area between 1550 sq. ft. to 2385 sq. ft. @ Rs. 2905/- to Rs. 5,384/-.  Complainants have made major payment as mentioned in the complaint and have paid more than Rs. 5.00 crores.  Allotment of apartments was made in the year 2011-2013 but still possession has not been handed over though grace period for possession has also elapsed.  As per agreement, opposite party is liable to pay penalty of Rs. 5.00/sq. ft./pm to the complainants.  Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed complaint for direction to opposite party to complete construction of apartments/units and hand over possession to the complainants and further pay interest @ 24% p.a. on total amount paid Rs.5,20,55,098/- and further to pay escalation charges and compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to each of the complainants towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1.00 lakh as cost of litigation to each of the complainants.
          Heard Learned Counsel for the complainant for admission purposes and perused record.
          Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that as complainants are having same interest on the same terms and conditions, complaint under Section 12 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable.
          Perusal of record reveals that complainant No. 1 booked apartment for a sum of Rs. 1,14,89,935/- against which he has made payment of Rs. 96,38,647/-.  As far other apartments of other complainants are concerned, they are ranging from Rs. 38.00 lakhs to Rs. 76.00 lakhs.  Admittedly, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaints only if value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore.  Value of goods alongwith compensation claimed by Complainant No. 2 to 14 does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and in such circumstances, their complaints are not maintainable before this Commission and they are supposed to file their complaints before appropriate State Commission.  Had complainant Nos. 2 to 14 filed complaints separately, they could not have been entertained by this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Under the garb of Section 12 (1) (c) or Section 13 (6) of Consumer Protection Act which are primarily meant for common services, e.g., facility of lift, deficiency in maintaining common areas or common facilities, complaints are not maintainable before this Commission merely because complainant No. 1’s complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
          Learned Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Complaint No. 282 of 2012- Dewan Ashwani & Ors.  Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.; in which complaint comprising many complaints was allowed as each complainant has got same interest on same terms & conditions though value of their apartments were ranging from Rs. 55.00 lakhs to Rs. 67.00 lakhs.  It was further submitted by him that SLP filed by opposite party was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court.  Perusal of order of Hon’ble Apex Court reveals that appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that order of this Commission was upheld on merits.  In the case in hand, different complainants have booked their apartments/ units for different consideration for different area at different rates and in different years.  In such circumstances, it cannot be held that each complainant has got same interest on same terms & conditions and we do not agree with law laid down by coordinate bench in Dewan Ashwani’s case (supra).
          Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that if two coordinate benches differ in their opinion, matter is to be referred to larger bench as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in 2015 (319) ELT622 (SC)- Commnr. of Customs and Central Excise  Vs. Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.;  in which it was held that if two coordinate benches in two cases render conflicting opinion, the only course of action open for Tribunal is to refer matter to larger Bench.  The aforesaid case is not applicable    as there is no conflicting judgment of other Bench rather this Bench is taking different view from the view taken by other coordinate Bench in Dewan Ashwani’s case (supra).  In such circumstances, matter is not required to be referred to larger Bench.
          Only complainant No.1’s case falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and complaints of other complainant Nos. 2 to 14 are not maintainable before this Commission and merely by moving application under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, complaints filed by other complainants are not maintainable before this Commission.  In such circumstances, only the complaint filed by complainant No. 1 pertaining to his apartment is maintainable before this Commission and complaint is dismissed for mis-joinder of parties with liberty to complainant No. 1 to file fresh complaint.  Liberty is also granted to other complainants to move to appropriate Forum for relief, if they so desire.
                                                                                                -sd/-


......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
PREM NARAIN
MEMBER


Tuesday, November 28, 2017

False and frivolous consumer cases_few case laws




49. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoers.
50. Learned Amicus articulated common mans general impression about litigation in following words :

Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.

28. In our opinion, the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and the revision petition is totally false, frivolous and bogus one, which is required to be dismissed with punitive costs of Rs.75,000/-.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Narayana Iit Academy vs Atishya Jain, on 14 February, 2012
REVISION PETITION NO.4142 OF 2011 
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105078049/


R. Narasimha Reddy Vs Kuchakula Surender Reddy ( FA No 502 of 2011, decided on March 5, 2012), the Commission had said: “Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party (complainants or consumers) of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with a heavy hand.” Punitive damages of Rs 1 lakh were imposed on a builder in this case for filing vexatious appeal.


Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs Karnail Singh and Another (FA No 342 of 2014, pronounced on July 25, 2014), the apex consumer court came down heavily upon the realtor for ‘gross abuse of the process of law’ and imposed exemplary damages of Rs 5 lakh. While doing so, the Commission quoted the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors (CA No 4912-4913 of 2011, decided on July 4, 2011) wherein it was observed that unless the courts ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefit from frivolous litigation, it would become very difficult to curb such practices.

 the Delhi Development Authority Vs D.C. Sharma (RP No 895 of 2013, decided on Feb 18, 2014), for example, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed its strong displeasure over those who filed frivolous appeals and slapped a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the Delhi Development Authority. Quoting several Supreme Court judgements on the subject, the two member bench of the Commission, consisting Justice V.B. Gupta and Rekha Gupta said: “… no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who, in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless petitions in different Fora.” the apex consumer court pointed out that the complaint was not false and frivolous, but the defence put up by the DDA was!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/spectrum/society/-false-frivolous-or-pure-harassment/392434.html


22. Honble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 has observed ;

The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
 
23. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed ;
Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.
24. It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different foras. Time and again Courts have held that if any litigant approaches the Court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands.

25. Now question which arises for consideration is as to what should be the quantum of costs which should be imposed upon the petitioners for dragging the respondent upto this fora, when petitioners had no case at all. It is not that every order passed by the judicial fora is to be challenged by the litigants even if the same are based on sound reasonings.

26. Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011 has observed ;
45. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that courts otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.

46. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal
1. Shri Dhanajay Nagesh Naik & Ors. vs Shri Sudam Gopal Pednekar on 27 April, 2012
REVISION PETITION NO. 144 OF 2012 
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53029117/?type=print

Friday, November 24, 2017

Booking cancellation – can the builder forfeit Earnest Money?

Booking cancellation – can the builder forfeit Earnest Money?



In the excitement of  booking a property, most of us forget to read the fine print of the booking form itself. There may be a situation where you may want to walk out of deal at some stage. However, it may not be easy for you to surrender your apartment without losses. In the event of buyer initiated cancellation of property, the developer shall forfeit the earnest money, commonly referred as booking amount. 

Earnest Money 

A deposit made to a seller showing the buyer’s good faith in a transaction. Often used in real estate transactions, earnest money allows the buyer additional time when seeking financing. Basically, at the time of property (home, commercial etc) booking, buyers are required to pay upfront, the agreed booking amount. This booking amount is usually 10% of the property value. 

There is no standard norm that define the amount of earnest money. While some builders deduct 10 per cent of the booking amount, others quote the same figure on the ‘cost of property’. Others deduct up to 20 per cent, whereas smaller developers may forfeit the entire booking amount. To get the fair idea of the earnest money, one should carefully read the booking form and other agreements. It is advised to clarify with the developer if same is missing from the documents. Here is what the booking form of some of the developers say:- 

"In case, at any stage, the intending allottee seeks cancellation of allotment and refund of the amount deposited by him, the company may, at its discretion, forfeit the booking/registration amount, or earnest money, as the case may be."

"  A request for cancellation can be made at any time after allotment. It may, however, be noted that the earnest money (10 per cent of the total consideration) will be forfeited, as the same is non-refundable. 

   Can the Developer legally forfeit such amounts 

There is no guideline for refunds and most developers insist that once you have signed the sale agreement, you are legally bound to follow it. As per courts, in some of the cases developer are right in deducting the booking amount in the event of cancellation. Legal standing on forfeiture of Earnest Money varies from case to case and here are some examples. 

1) No Earnest Money / Booking Cancellation clause in Application Form / Agreements 

Most of the time, the application form has no material information to disclose. Later on when the developer finalizes the allotment process, the buyer is asked to sign a builder-buyer agreement. Some of the stringent one side clauses are included by developer in this agreement but not specifically emphasized. The buyer in most of the cases do not go much into detail of the agreement and signs it under pressure from agents that it is a standard document and nothing important is mentioned in it. Also they are pressurized that if they do not sign or withdraw the offer, the booking amount will be forfeited, so in fear and innocence the buyer signs the agreement without knowing its consequences. 

Case Study: The buyer/complainant had booked a flat in one of the residential projects Excelsior,Boulder Hills, Golf and Country club at Hyderabad of Emaar MGF. He paid the booking amount of Rs 9.52 lacs along with the application and later on when allotment was finalized the buyer signed the agreement and paid 19 lacs by cheque, but he was not informed by the developer regarding any clause relating to withdrawal of offer. After four months the buyer informed the company that as the flat was anti-vastu he had no interest in keeping it and instead showed intention of buying a villa. He requested the company to cancel the flat and refund the money deposited by him along with bank interest. The company refunded the amount but after deducting 10% of sale price of the apartment. Being aggrieved the buyer approached the National Consumer forum. There it was held that in a case where the terms & conditions agreed between the parties do not provide for the whole or partial forfeiture of the earnest money, in the event of default on the part of the buyer, the only remedy open to the builder is to prove the actual damages, if any, sustained by it on account of buyer backing out from his contractual obligations and only on proving such damages, it could seek to deduct those expenses from the money deposited by the buyer. In absence of any proof, the developer is bound to refund the full amount. 

2) Cancellation clause is mentioned in Agreement 

In this case the buyer deliberately delayed the payments of installment to developer and also delayed signing the agreement. The builder raised several demands for subsequent installments and also asked the complainant to sign the buyers’ agreement. However, the complainant did not pay the installments as demanded, nor sign the buyers’ agreement despite repeated letters and intimations from the builder. 

Case Study: The National Commission relied on the Supreme Court’s explanation regarding ‘earnest money’. Earnest money is that amount out of the total purchase consideration which is a token to bind the purchaser to the contract. Accordingly, earnest money can be forfeited if the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser in performing his obligations – which basically concern payment of consideration, unless there is anything to the contrary in the terms of the contract. 

In this case, the complainant had defaulted in payment of installment as per the schedule of payment of the total price of his apartment. Also, the complainant had not signed the buyer’s agreement or returned the signed copy to the builder within the time stipulated for it despite repeated reminders for it. Thus, the Commission held that the builder was not liable to refund the earnest money as the transaction had fallen through due to default by the complainant. Thus, in the present case the National Commission decided in favor of the builder, upholding the forfeiture of earnest money as it was rightfully forfeited as per the agreement between the builder and complainant and the default in payment of installments as per the schedule of payment. This case highlights that the general perception of builders being wrong in all cases and that the right to forfeit earnest money depends on the conduct of the parties irrespective whether he is a builder or a buyer.

 3) Cancellation if Project approvals are not in place 

Even if there is a clause that empowers the developer to forfeit the earnest money, developer can not do so if the project approvals are not in place and buyer want to exit the project. NCDRC in case of Emaar Excelsior project observed that, As the opposite parties have not furnished the approvals or sanction and have not adhered to their own terms, forfeiture of 10% of the consideration amount is unsustainable as the opposite parties have committed an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing mental agony to the complainant whose money has been blocked with the opposite parties for more than four years time. 


 Clarification on Earnest Money: 

The question as to what would constitute earnest money which the seller of the property is entitled to forfeit, came up before this Commission in DLF Ltd. Vs. Bhagwanti Narula, Revision Petition No. 3860 of 2014, decided on 06.01.2015 and the following view was taken:- 

It would thus be seen that only a ‘reasonable amount’ can be forfeited as earnest money in the event of default on the part of the purchaser and it is not permissible in law to forfeit any amount beyond a reasonable amount, unless it is shown that the person forfeiting the said amount had actually suffered loss to the extent of the amount forfeited by him.   In our opinion, 20% of the sale price cannot be said to be a reasonable amount which the Petitioner Company could have forfeited on account of default on the part of the complainant unless it can show it had only suffered loss to the extent the amount was forfeited by it.  In our opinion, in absence of evidence of actual loss, forfeiture of any amount exceeding 10% of the sale price cannot be said to be a reasonable amount. 

    It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company that since the complainant had specifically agreed to treat 20% of the sale price as earnest money, the forfeiture to the extent of 20% of the sale price cannot be said to be unreasonable, the same being inconsonance with the terms agreed between the parties. This was also his contention that so long as the Petitioner Company was acting as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, it cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant. We, however, find ourselves unable to accept the aforesaid contention, since, in our view, forfeiture of the amount which cannot be shown to be a reasonable amount would be contrary to the very concept of forfeiture of the earnest money.  If we accept the aforesaid contention, an unreasonable person, in a given case may insert a clause in Buyers Agreement whereby say 50% or even 75% of the sale price is to be treated as earnest money and in the event of default on the part of the Buyer; he may seek to forfeit 50% of the sale price as earnest money.  An Agreement for forfeiting more than 10% of the sale price, in our view, would be invalid since it would be contrary to the established legal principle that only a reasonable amount can be forfeited in the event of default on the part of the Buyer. 

For the reasons stated herein above, we hold that 

(i) an amount exceeding 10% of the total price cannot be forfeited by the seller, since forfeiture beyond 10% of the sale price would be unreasonable and

(ii) only the amount, which is paid at the time of concluding the contract can be said to be the earnest money.” 

When can you really challenge Forfeiture of Earnest Money 

As per our research, a home buyer can easily challenge the developer’s decision to forfeit the earnest money in following cases. 

If cancellation is sought at a stage when no agreement is signed which contains cancellation clause. 

Buyer is not happy with the terms and conditions of Builder Buyer Agreement which is not supplied on time by the developer. 

Developer does not have necessary approvals and buyer seek cancellation. 

In case of delay, if the buyer decides to stop the payments, builder has right to cancel the allotment and forfeit the earnest money. This was decided in DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dipu C. Seminlal, 2015 in NCDRC

 How to go about getting refunds 

What if you want to cancel after the booking? Approach the builder with a ‘genuine’ reason for cancellation. While defining a ‘genuine’ reason is difficult, a developer is more open to concessions on humanitarian grounds rather than ones that highlight his shortcomings. So, even though a buyer thinks that a delay in delivery or change in original building plans is reason enough to seek cancellation, the builder is unlikely to see reason in the argument and is wont to cite the delay in all projects. Sometimes, the builder may not have the money if too many projects are being cancelled. However, some developers are willing to refund if a buyer faces a financial problem like an unapproved home loan or a job loss. 

Things to keep in mind 

Familiarize yourself with the sale deed before going to developer. 

Give a good reason for withdrawing from a project; financial problems work best. 

Consider shifting to another property by the same builder. 

Network with other buyers in the same project. 

Ask the developer for a written document specifying the deduction. 

Don’t pay cash while booking the property and ask for a receipt. 

Conclusion

 It is imperative that buyers clearly understand the true concept of earnest money and negotiate the terms with the developer at the time of signing the agreement. The buyer should negotiate on earnest money well in advance and also he should agree on conditions subject to clause that developer also has fulfilled his obligations.

Read more at The Logical Buyer's blog: Booking cancellation – can the builder forfeit Earnest Money? http://www.thelogicalbuyer.com/blog/?p=1382