According to a decision made on December 27 by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench, which was made up of Mr. Binoy Kumar as the presiding member and Mr. Sudip Ahluwalia as a member, a landowner is jointly and severally liable for any compensation in addition to the developer for a failure in service. The commission was hearing a complaint about a delay in receiving ownership of a flat.

The complainants reserved a unit in the Karnataka-based development "ND Laurel." It was claimed that the purchasers and opposite party no. 1 (ND Developers Pvt. Ltd.) had reached an understanding about the development and construction of the apartments. Landowners who are also opposing parties are jointly responsible for the countless instances of unfair commercial practises, restricted trade practises, and service deficiencies. According to the contract, the purchasers were expected to take possession of the apartments in December 2012, with a further grace period of four months, as well as other amenities including road repair, STP, a lift, a corridor, and a staircase, among others. However, despite receiving 95% of the buyers' money, the opposing parties have been unable to secure an occupancy permit, and the apartments' building quality has been subpar. Additionally, incomplete flats without the stated basic utilities were provided for ownership. 

Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors V. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd was cited in the bench's observation of the opposition party's argument, and it was noted that there should be a similarity of interest rather than a similar cause of action.

The opposing party no. 4, a landowner, claimed that since opposing party no. 1, the builder, is to blame for the construction delay and has no involvement in the problem, he or she should not be held jointly or severally liable. The bench in this case cited the commission's ruling in Pooja Daryani & Anr V. M/s Umag Realtech Pvt Ltd, which determined that the person that confirms a partnership agreement between two parties, even if that party is a landowner, is jointly and severally accountable for any damages. Any such agreement is between the parties in opposition and is not binding on the complainants.

The bench observed that the project's completion had been delayed unreasonably, and the complainants could not continue to wait for possession because they had made significant financial investments with the goal of obtaining it. The Supreme Court's rulings in the cases of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devasis Rudran, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghvan, Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, and Supertech Ltd. vs. Rajni Goyal were cited by the bench to support their observations.

The bench also highlighted that there was a four-month grace period before possession was to be given, which was intended to happen in December 2014. But there was a persistent delay. Only in 2016, a few complainants did accept their allotment, but the opposing parties have yet to be successful in obtaining an occupancy certificate. The bench remarked that the delay is approximately 9 years for those who have not acquired such paper possession in the absence of an occupation certificate. As a result, there has been a persistent wait of more than 9 years in receiving an occupancy certificate. Without an occupancy certificate, the builder or developer cannot compel a buyer to take possession. In this regard, the Hon. Supreme Court's ruling in Samruddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. is called to your attention. 

The complaint was partially upheld by the commission with the following instructions: 

Where the complainants/buyers are asking for a refund but have not yet received anything: 

●    Within two months of the date of this Order, the opposing parties are required to return the total sum that the respective complainants/buyers deposited along with delay compensation calculated at 9% per annum on the deposited amount from the respective deposit dates till realisation.

●    A 12% annual interest rate will be charged for the additional two months of delay. If the complainants or buyers have obtained paper possession, then:

●    The opposite parties are ordered to finish the flats allocated to the complainants in all respects, properly obtain the necessary occupancy certificate at their own cost and responsibility, and offer and give possession of the respective Units to the complainants within six months of this order along with delay compensation at an annual rate of eight percent (8%), taking into account the grace period, from the proposed date of possession as per the respective Agreements.

●    A 12% annual interest rate will be charged for the additional two months of delay.

Case Title: Prashant Telkar and Vijeta Kalghatgi & 51 Ors V. ND Developers Pvt. Ltd & 5 Ors
Citation: CONSUMER CASE NO. 3681 OF 2017