Previously, the court rejected the contractor`s argument that RERA prohibited the use of home buyers under the Consumer Protection Act and stated that, despite the Real Estate (Decree and Development) Act 2016, buyers could continue to turn to the Consumer Forum for Repair, including reimbursement and compensation of real estate companies. , in order to delay the possession of their homes. While the purchasers had initially postponed the National Consumer Dispute Commission (NCDRC) after the project was delayed and the consumer court had ordered the contractor to pay compensation, the owner transferred the Supreme Court. He submitted that the rera registration was valid until December 2020 and that it was therefore not possible to expect the project to be delayed. According to the developers, this request was requested by home buyers in accordance with the agreement and that no part of the penalty was requested by home buyers. The Supreme Court rejected the allegation that the terms of the agreed rate of compensation limited homebuyers, regardless of the nature or extent of the delay in the surrender of ownership of the units. Such a proposal would lead to a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Bank of Judge DY Chandrachud and Judge KM Joseph heard petitions from 339 home buyers of DLF Southern Homes Pvt. (now known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt.) and Annabel Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
“In this case, the apartments were booked by the plaintiffs in 2011-12 and the Buyer Builder Agreements were concluded in November. , 2013. As promised, construction should have been completed in 42 months. The deadline had expired well before the project was registered, in accordance with the provisions of the RERA Act. The mere fact that registration is valid until 31.12.2020 under the RERA Act does not mean that the right of those concerned to continue legal action is deferred. It should be noted that for the purposes of Section 18 as well, the time limit must be deducted with respect to the agreement and not from the registration.” The court was satisfied with the developers` statement that the construction contract tax charges were not being paid due to ongoing litigation. “Even if they had been paid [taxes] earlier, buyers would have been forced to repay their proportionate share of taxes,” the court said. The court went through the agreement and found that the purchasers were required to bear a reasonable share of the taxes and there was no doubt about that position. These complaints under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the joint judgment and scheduling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer Case Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019 and 3020 of 2017.