Stage-wise payment without agreement not tenable: Court

Pune: The district consumer court here has ruled that in the absence of an agreement, a developer cannot deny interest to a homebuyer on part payment by arguing that the latter did not make stage-wise payments despite repeated reminders.

The court passed an order to this effect on October 24. It ordered Prayoja City firm and its partner Sandeep Jani to refund Rs 10.72 lakh with 9% per annum interest and Rs 5,000 cost to Yerawada resident Amer C Fakir for deficient service. The interest component, payable since February 2012, works out to over Rs 5.46 lakh.

The court has given 45 days to the developer to implement its order. In case of failure to comply, the interest rate will go up to 12% p.a. on total outstanding till actual realisation.

Fakir had complained that the developer had not executed an agreement for sale of flat after receiving more than 60% of the agreed consideration for a flat he booked in the scheme. The developer also did not hand over the possession of the flat to him despite Fakir's willingness to pay the balance amount.

On his part, the developer had argued that the complainant failed to make stage-wise payment of instalments towards the consideration despite repeated reminders. Hence, Fakir was not entitled to interest on part consideration paid and possession of the flat.

The consumer court bench of V P Utpat and Onkar G Patil, while referring to evidence on record and the pleadings, observed, "It seems no agreement has been executed between the parties, which is a mandatory obligation on the part of the opposite parties (developer) under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963."

"Since no agreement is entered into, the insistence of stage-wise payment by the complainant to the opposite parties is not tenable as the complainant is unaware of the stage-wise payment and the terms and conditions," the bench ruled. "In these circumstances, it is the considered opinion of this forum that since the opposite parties did not make any agreement in spite of receiving more than 60% of the payment and by not delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant, the opposite parties have definitely caused 'deficiency' in service," the bench held.