“In the absence of any time schedule for stage wise completion of construction to be followed by the respondent (promoter) so as to provide the flat within the date fixed under the agreement, and when the progress of construction was delayed beyond the agreed time limit, the respondent cannot expect the complainants (homebuyers) to make payment as per the schedule without specific dates for payment,” said adjudicating officer G Saravanan.
V Gnanasambandam and G Danya had booked a flat with KG Foundation (P) Ltd in their project at Adayalampattu, and paid advance amount and further amounts as agreed by them. According to their complaint, they had availed bank loan for payment of sale consideration of the flat.
In March 2013, the buyers and the promoter entered into an agreement and the latter undertook to complete construction and deliver the flat in 30 months, with a grace period of 4 months, from the date of agreement.
As the construction progressed at a very slow pace, there was a delay of more than 70 months. The promoter reworked the cost of the flat and reduced the sale price by Rs 7.30 lakh. The buyers instructed their banker to stop further payment and sought to cancel the allotment by refunding.
But the promoter claimed that it issued several reminders to make the balance payment, and also argued that the complainants failed to comply with the demands for payment as per the terms of agreement. “A complete reading of the terms and conditions of the agreement further reveals that the terms and conditions are one-sided, unfair and unreasonable. In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd vs Govindan Raghavan and others, the Supreme Court had held that the builder could not seek to bind the allottee with one sided contractual terms,” Saravanan pointed out in his order. He then ordered the respondent to refund the amount with interest to the homebuyers.