Supreme Court_Ongoing project_effect of RERA Registration_entitlement of possession period_Builder Buyer Agreements_BBA_Agreement to sell

 

33. We may now consider the effect of the registration of the Project under the RERA Act. In the present case the apartments were booked by the Complainants in 2011-2012 and the Builder Buyer Agreements were entered into in November, 2013. As promised, the construction should have been completed in 42 months. The period had expired well before the Project was registered under the provisions of the RERA Act.

Merely because the registration under the RERA Act is valid till 31.12.2020 does not mean that the entitlement of the concerned allottees to maintain an action stands deferred. It is relevant to note that even for the purposes of Section 18, the period has to be reckoned in terms of the agreement and not the registration. Condition no. (x) of the letter dated 17.11.2017 also entitles an allottee in same fashion. Therefore, the entitlement of the Complainants must be considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer Agreements and was rightly dealt with by the Commission.

M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and Anr.

[Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020 @ Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019]

[Civil Appeal No. 3591 of 2020 @ Civil Appeal Diary No. 9793/2019]

Source: https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13253 

NCDRC_Supreme Court_Time of filing reply_Consumer Protection Act

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. dated 04.03.2020, the delay in filing the written version cannot be condoned beyond 15 days, by a Consumer Forum. Therefore, irrespective of the merit of the case, it will not be permissible for this Commission to condone the delay if it happens to be more than 15 days. Had the written version been filed on 15.9.2020 even then it would have been barred by limitation which had already expired on 14.9.2020:

Source:

Case No.	Complainant	Respondent	Complainant Advocate	Respondent Advocate	Date of Filing	Date of Disposal
FA/718/2020	PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.	GURVAK SINGH	MS. ZEHRA KHAN & ZAHID AHMED		2020-10-19	2020-10-27

Supreme Court_NCDRC_ compensation_no possession of apartment

.............the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65 to impress that compensation for a person who does not get possession is more as compared to a person who gets the possession. The learned counsel referred to the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case:-

 “9.  That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher.  Further if the construction is not of good quality or not complete, the compensation would be the cost of putting it in good shape or completing it along with some compensation for harassment.  Similarly, if at the time of giving possession a higher price or other amounts are collected unjustifiably and without there being any provision for the same the direction would be to refund it with a reasonable rate of interest.  If possession is refused or not given because the consumer has refused to pay the amount, then on the finding that the demand was unjustified the consumer can be compensated for harassment and a direction to deliver possession can be given.  If a party who has paid the amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position to ascertain whether he has paid the amount and that party is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he has paid the amount, there would be deficiency of service for which compensation for harassment must be awarded depending on the extent of harassment.  Similarly, if after delivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are not executed without any justifiable reasons, the compensation would depend on the amount of harassment suffered.  We clarify that the above are mere examples.  They are not exhaustive.  The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer. ”