Antriksh NRI City, a Haridwar-based developer, has been ordered by the Uttarakhand state consumer commission to repay Rs 3 lakh plus 6% interest to petitioner Vikas Malik. Malik had initially paid Rs 6.4 lakh as part payment for a Rs 34 lakh plot but later wished to cancel the deal. The developer argued that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the refund, a stance the commission rejected. They ruled in favour of Malik, emphasizing that banks and government institutions were operational during the pandemic, rendering the developer's excuse insufficient. In addition to the refund, the developer was directed to pay Rs 10,000 in litigation charges. This case underscores the importance of upholding contractual agreements even during unforeseen circumstances.
Antriksh NRI City, a Haridwar-based developer, has been directed by the Uttarakhand state consumer commission to reimburse a sum of Rs 3 lakh, coupled with an interest rate of 6%, to petitioner Vikas Malik. Vikas Malik had initiated a deal with the developer to purchase a plot of land but subsequently decided to withdraw from the transaction. The developer argued that their inability to issue the refund was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The commission did not accept this argument.
Malik had initially disbursed a partial consideration amount of Rs 6.4 lakh to the developer, intending to procure a plot valued at Rs 34 lakh. The terms and conditions of the agreement outlined that should an allottee wish to cancel their allotment and fail to pay the full consideration amount, they would forfeit 10% of the plot's sale price as earnest money. The remaining balance would be refunded, but without any interest.
Malik proceeded to submit an application to the developer in May 2020, expressing his disinterest in obtaining the plot and requesting the cancellation of his booking. As per the company's own policies, he was entitled to a refund of his deposit. The developer contended that the balance amount could not be returned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the commission rejected this argument, stating that banks and government institutions remained operational and conducted transactions for account holders during the pandemic.
The state consumer commission firmly stated that the grounds taken by the developer for not refunding the balance amount due to COVID-19 were not sufficient. In addition to the refund, the developer was also directed to pay Rs 10,000 in litigation charges to the petitioner, Vikas Malik. This ruling sets a precedent and highlights the importance of adhering to contractual agreements, even in the face of unforeseen circumstances such as a global pandemic.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
