Last Updated on August 2, 2024 by Satish Mishra
Post Covers RERA Punjab Complaint against Country Colonizers Private Limited for delay in possession and getting monthly interest from the builder till valid legal offer of possession is made.
In this post, we bring you a judgment digest of a case of Punjab RERA Complaint against Country Colonizers Private Limited for delay in possession and interest on the delay period as per RERA terms before Real Estate Regulatory Authority Punjab (Form M). This would give fair idea to complainants before making their complaints before the Punjab RERA Authority under Form M for interest on delay and person is interested to continue in the project (not withdrawing from it) else, one can prefer his/her complaint before Adjudicating Officer under Form N online for refund of money invested in the project which is consumer no longer want to continue the project.
Country Colonizers Private Limited Complaint
Also Read- File Your Complaint Online With Rera Punjab
Here’s the Judgment Digest:Mr. Arvind Sharma v M/s Country Colonizers private limited
A complaint was filed under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and development) Act, 2016 by the petitioner Arvind Sharma against M/s Country Colonizers Pvt Limited before the RERA authority, Punjab on account of delayed possession of an apartment in the project ‘Wave estate, block G’ which was developed by the respondents. The main relief sought in the complaint was payment of interest for period of delay. It was alleged that an agreement for sale of the apartment was entered on 4/06/2015 and as per this agreement the possession of the apartment was to be delivered on or before 3/12/2017.
Also Read- Rera Punjab Form M and N Finally Settled
Even though the complainant had paid most of the due amounts, valid possession was offered on 5/11/2018 i.e. after a delay of 11 months. Apart from claiming relief for this period, the complainant had also claimed that the area of the apartment was also increased by the respondent and a demand of Rs. 1.06 lakhs had been raised on this account. It was claimed that this was unlawful.
Also Read- Complaints Maintainable in Rera Punjab for Unregistered Projects
Multiple responses opposing the claims of the complainant were filed by the respondent on various grounds. The contention that the RERA Act, 2016 could not be applicable to this matter as it was prospective in nature was rejected by the authority as was the contention made by the respondent that as the complainant had not completed its payment obligations, its claims should be dismissed. Another contention that the complainant had purchased the apartment for speculation and not for his personal use was also rejected by the authority.
Also Read- Rera Punjab Haryana Appeals at High Court Chandigarh
On the merits, the respondent contended that it had paid huge amounts of money to HDFC by way of pre-EMI interest on behalf of the complainant and that this amount should be set off against any payment that was required to be made to the complainant. The second contention was that the increase in area was of only 26 feet compared to the original area of the apartment which was more that 1000 sq feet, hence this was within the 5% limit allowed in Rule 8(3) of the Punjab State Real estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. It was also pointed out that clause 4 of the agreement dated 04.06.2015 also stipulated that the area of the apartment could be changed if required.
Also Read- Adjudicating Officer RERA Panchkula RERA Punjab
ORDER
It was observed in the judgment that there was indeed delay in offering possession to the complainants, and that the delay was for 11 months. The respondent was ordered to pay interest at the rate mentioned in Rule 16 of the Rules for the period of delay. However, the authority also took note that the sum paid by the respondent to the financing institution by way of pre-EMI interest is payment made on behalf of the complainants and the respondent is entitled to claim it from the complainants. Therefore, the respondent was held to be at liberty to set off the amount paid to the HDFC on behalf of the complainants against this liability. Relief claimed by way of denial of liability to pay for the increased area of the apartment was denied to the complainants.
Also Read- Free Legal Advice Online on RERA Punjab Matters
Rest, for case specific advice, please contact RERA Punjab Lawyers Advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur Baltana Mullanpur etc.
For more on 99888-17966.
