Summary
The developer challenged refund orders by relying on possession notices and a precedent computing the delivery period from fire clearance. The Court upheld both refunds. In the first case, even on the developer’s computation, its later email showed that the apartment remained unfinished and possession could not be delivered despite an interim order. In the second, the promised amenities had not been provided. The precedent concerning completed apartments did not defeat relief on these facts.
Issues
- Whether possession notices and the contractual delivery-period computation defeated the buyers’ claims for refund.
- Whether failure to provide promised amenities justified refund.
Held
- The precedent concerning calculation of the delivery period from fire clearance involved apartments whose construction was complete and possession could be given. In the present first appeal, even accepting the developer’s claimed deadline, its own later email showed it could not deliver a completed apartment despite the interim direction. (¶ 17-22)
- The buyer had sought possession first and pursued interim delivery, with refund as an alternative if timely possession was unavailable. The developer’s inability to hand over the apartment justified the NCDRC’s refund direction with the applicable interest. (¶¶ 8-10, 16, 21-22)
- In the second appeal, the NCDRC found that amenities promised for the apartment and project had not been provided. Breach of that representation was actionable and justified refund with interest. Both appeals were dismissed. (¶ 23-27)
Result
Developer’s appeals dismissed; NCDRC refund orders with interest at 10.25 per cent per annum upheld.