NCDRC recently directed Mantri Developers to compensate apartment owners of Mantri Residency. The consumer forum sided with the petitioner and ordered the developer to refund the maintenance deposit within six weeks along with 6% penalty for delay from September 1, 2017. The court further clarified that further delays in refunds would incur interest. 9% p.a.
accusers. Who owns the 337 flats included in the project and claims that the developer collected a refundable maintenance fee of Rs 90 per sq ft on ownership of the flats. Additionally, a non-refundable deposit of Rs 0.61 per sq ft was also charged. The maintenance agreement originally established with M/S Propcare is scheduled to run from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019, with the express condition that the refundable deposit will be returned upon termination or expiration of the agreement. was determined.
In February 2017, the general meeting of apartment owners resolved to terminate the maintenance contract, and maintenance responsibilities were to be taken over by the Mantri Residency Apartment Owners Welfare Association. However, residents insist. It is said that the developer did not refund the disputed amount. This led the plaintiffs to file an action under the Consumer Protection Act 1996, seeking not only the return of the maintenance fee, but also the return of the maintenance fee, along with interest. The plaintiffs also sought compensation of 1 million rupees each for psychological harassment caused by delays in refund procedures.
In response, the opposing party argued that the petitioner did not qualify as a consumer under the Act and lacked the necessary majority to terminate the contract. They also argued that the terms of the original agreement should have been complied with and that the petitioners had no valid cause of action.
NCRDC sided with the petitioner and held that the refund of this amount was not disputed by the opposite parties. Therefore, this amount has to be returned to Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 5 depending on the circumstances of the case and whether the delay in return of this refundable deposit includes delay compensation with simple interest or not. This is something that should be done.
