The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled against the developers of the World One project in 'Upper Worli,' finding them responsible for unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service. The NCDRC has ordered refunds with interest to three flat buyers, totalling approximately Rs 33 crore, with a maximum pay out of Rs 13 crore. The project faced significant delays due to the Airports Authority of India withholding a No Objection Certificate. The NCDRC rejected the developers' argument that the flat purchasers should have terminated their agreements, emphasizing the developers' responsibility for the project's delays and lack of necessary approvals. This ruling sets a precedent for consumer rights in real estate disputes.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled against the developers of the World One project in 'Upper Worli' (Lower Parel), holding them accountable for unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service related to the promotion and delivery of their project. The NCDRC has ordered a refund of approximately Rs 33 crore to three flat buyers, along with 12% interest, with a maximum pay out of Rs 13 crore.
The World One project was initially marketed as an "iconic residential building comprising 117 floors," touting its status as the tallest residential building in the world and boasting various unique and premier features. However, the project encountered a major roadblock when construction stalled around the 80th floor due to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) withholding the No Objection Certificate (NOC).
The legal proceedings were set in motion when Premlata Garg, who had purchased a three-bedroom flat measuring 2,044 sq ft in 'The World Towers, Upper Worli' in 2014 with an expected possession date in 2015, approached the NCDRC in 2017. Garg sought redress against Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd (now merged and incorporated as Macrotech Developers Limited) and The Lodha Group, citing a substantial delay in receiving possession of her flat.
The NCDRC also issued orders regarding other flat purchasers within the same project. Mukesh Kumar Gupta is set to receive a refund of Rs 10.3 crore with 12% interest, while Agwarwal will be entitled to Rs 9.8 crore with a similar interest rate.
In their defence, the developers argued that the flat purchasers were not entitled to a refund, as per the Agreement to Sell (ATS) clause, which required them to terminate the agreement within 90 days of the grace period's expiry. Failure to do so would be deemed as acceptance of the revised possession date. However, the NCDRC asserted that given the absence of the necessary NOC for the proposed building height, the likelihood of a legal offer of possession was remote, justifying the request for a refund with compensation for the delay.
The commission emphasized that as allottees in a premier and iconic project, the complainants should not be compelled to accept possession and were well within their rights to seek a refund of their deposited money. They noted that no documents had been provided to explain why construction stalled at the 80th floor or why the occupation certificate was available for only up to the 43rd floor.
The developers contended that the non-receipt of the NOC from the civil aviation department for height clearance fell under the clause relating to "factors beyond control of the opposite party." However, the NCDRC rejected this argument, asserting that the absence of the NOC was a known issue from the project's inception and not a sudden or unforeseen event.
In conclusion, the NCDRC found the developers guilty of unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service. They ordered refunds with interest for the affected flat buyers, highlighting the developers' responsibility in the project's delays and the absence of necessary approvals. This ruling serves as a precedent for upholding consumer rights and holding developers accountable for project delays and misrepresentations.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
