Mumbai: A couple receives a Rs 1 crore refund plus Rs 63 lakh in interest for a delayed flat purchase.

According to the National Consumer Commission, a builder cannot blame a delay in construction on the time it took to obtain the necessary permission from the authorities.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that the time required to obtain approval from the appropriate authorities is always to be expected. The builder cannot use this as an excuse to postpone construction. As a result, we find no merit in this plea, and it is rejected “According to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

It also stated that a flat purchaser is entitled to a refund with 9% interest and compensation for construction delays. Kapstone Constructions Pvt Ltd was ordered to pay approximately Rs 63 lakh in interest and refund Rs 1.17 crore to flat buyers Anuj and Somara Biswas. After their possession of the Thane flat was delayed for over a year, the couple sought a refund with interest. They refused to accept postponed possession and instead requested a refund.

The commission cited an earlier decision that held that after the promised delivery date, the complainant has the option of accepting the offer of possession, if any, or requesting a refund of the amounts paid with reasonable interest. The commission stated, “It is held that the complainants have every right to seek a refund of the principal amount plus interest and compensation.”

It was noted that the developer’s only defence for the delay was that the municipal corporation issued the occupation certificate late.

The developer was also ordered to pay an additional Rs 50,000 in costs by the commission.

According to the complaint, the couple paid Rs 1.32 lakh for a 750-square-foot flat on the 12th floor of Rustomjee Urbania Azziano. They stated that they made a 90% payment in 2013 using a bank loan and other sources. The couple claimed they had no idea the entire loan amount of approximately Rs 99 lakh would be released to the developer in a single instalment at the start of the project. As a result, they were forced to pay exorbitant interest and suffered financial losses.

Despite being told that they would receive possession by December 31, 2015, with a maximum grace period of six months, the couple claimed that the date of handing over possession was listed in the actual registration document as December 2016. They claimed that after numerous attempts to contact the developers, they were told in August 2018 at a meeting to take possession of the purchased apartment subject to payment of possession charges. However, the couple refused.