{"id":274655,"date":"2022-09-29T09:00:57","date_gmt":"2022-09-29T03:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=274655"},"modified":"2022-09-29T09:00:57","modified_gmt":"2022-09-29T03:30:57","slug":"ncdrc-offer-of-possession-apartment-no-amenities-arbitrary-deduction-of-earnest-money-whether-mahindra-homes-liable-deficient-service-money-refund-agreements-consumer-legal-news-and-updat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/29\/ncdrc-offer-of-possession-apartment-no-amenities-arbitrary-deduction-of-earnest-money-whether-mahindra-homes-liable-deficient-service-money-refund-agreements-consumer-legal-news-and-updat\/","title":{"rendered":"Offer of possession of apartments without the amenities promised and arbitrary deduction of earnest money; Read to know whether NCDRC found Mahindra Homes liable for deficient service?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)<\/b>: The Bench of S.M. Kanitkar (Presiding Member) and Binoy Kumar (Member) while deliberating upon the instant complaints seeking refund of amount paid against the total consideration of the flat booked along with interest; observed and held that Mahindra Homes and Ireo Pvt. Ltd., have committed deficiency in service vis-a-vis providing the complainants their apartment along with the amenities promised, and since the builder had deducted 10% of total sale consideration, hence the amount of earnest money deducted was not correct, especially when the complainants were not at fault.<\/p>\n

Relevant Facts of the Case<\/b>: The complainants booked an apartment<\/b> (hereinafter unit) under the “Project Luminare<\/i>” initiated by the opposite parties (Mahindra Homes and Ireo Pvt. Ltd.) on 10-10-2014<\/b>. The basic sale price was Rs. 3 crore 52 lakhs and 23 thousand and the complainant paid a booking amount of 15 Lakhs. Thereafter, via provisional allotment letter dated 26-11-2014, the opposite parties allotted the unit to the complainants<\/b>.<\/p>\n

As per the complainants, the opposite parties executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement<\/b> with them on 04-05-2015<\/b>. Prior to execution of this Agreement, the complainants paid an amount of Rs. 86,70,436 towards consideration of the unit. The complainants stated that all in all, they paid Rs. 1,30, 05,655 against the total consideration. The complainants further stated that the Agreement had several one-sided, arbitrary clauses and they were unbale to negotiate those with the opposite parties. On 28-03-2019, the complainants received the offer of possession<\/b> and to execute the conveyance deed within 60 days, making the final payment of Rs. 3,41,17,818.<\/p>\n

The complainants then visited the site only to discover that the opposite parties had failed to provide the promised amenities such as- a state of the art clubhouse with banquet halls and basketball courts, golf course, kids’ playing area, gym etc.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/b>: The complainants alleged mischievous concealment of the actual carpet area and super are by the opposite parties in order to overcharge the complainants.<\/p>\n

It was also submitted that the opposite parties did not present their plans to the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The complainants also submitted that despite them raising these concerns before the opposite parties, no action was taken to cure the defects. They also complained of harassment by the opposite parties.<\/p>\n

The main grievance raised by the complainant was that the opposite parties had arbitrarily deducted the earnest money and had not completed the project as per the Agreement.<\/b><\/p>\n

Per contra<\/i>, the opposite parties argued that they had made their offer of possession within the time period stipulated in clause 4.3<\/b> of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. It was also argued that nowhere the opposite party had promised any sort of amenities. They also denied any concealment vis-a-vis the actual carpet area.<\/p>\n

The opposite parties also submitted that carpet area details were given to the HRERA authorities in 2017, whereas their agreement with the complainants was finalized before RERA came into effect in 2016; which is why carpet area details were not found in HRERA records.<\/p>\n

Observations and Decision:<\/b><\/p>\n