Hyderabad:Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has ordered Aditya Construction Company Pvt Ltd, represented by its executive director Thota Satyanarayana, to reimburse the pre-EMI amounts paid by a complainant.
The complainant claimed that he paid the Pre-EMI Scheme and that the loan amount was disbursed for a flat in Aditya Capitol Heights, situated at Hafeezpet, Serilingampally, but the flat has not been delivered.
The complaint said he paid Rs 7.6 lakh separately and an addition Rs 1 lakh as pre EMI. The company issued a flat booking letter in January 2017, but the flat was not delivered.
The total cost of the flat was 76.03 lakh. He also took a loan from a housing finance firm. According to him, he paid ` 59. 40 lakh and the loan disbursement amount, totaling 78 per cent of the flat charges but the housing unit was not delivered.
It has been ordered that within a period of 40 days, the pre EMI amount should be reimbursed along with interest. The company should complete the pending amenities and hand over the flat, it was submitted.
The Aditya Construction Company was also instructed to expeditiously complete all the pending works, obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority, and hand over possession of the flats along with all the promised amenities.
The company should register the flat in favour of the complainant without undue delay upon receipt of the balance sale consideration, it was ordered. TGRERA warned Aditya Construction Company that a failure to comply with the directions will result in a penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The “Pre-EMI Scheme” offered by the builder was a payment arrangement under which purchasers were required to pay a 10 per cent booking advance, obtain about 85 per cent of the amount as a housing loan from a bank, and pay the remaining amount at the possession stage. Under the scheme, the builder undertook to bear the pre-EMI interest on the housing loan until completion and handover of the flat.
The complainants stated that they booked the flat relying on this assurance. They said the builder initially paid the pre-EMIs for about nine months but later arbitrarily discontinued the scheme, alleging delay and default in payments by the purchasers.
In its reply, the builder argued that the scheme was conditional upon timely payments, submission of loan documents and lump-sum disbursement of the loan amount. It claimed that due to alleged defaults by the purchasers, they automatically became ineligible for continuation of the scheme and were shifted to a regular payment plan.
However, the Authority rejected the builder’s defence and observed that the builder had itself acknowledged the complainants’ eligibility by incorporating the scheme in the Agreement of Sale and by paying the Pre-EMIs for several months.
The authority further held that there was no clause mandating lump-sum disbursement of 85 per cent of the loan amount and that the purchasers had substantially complied with their payment obligations. It also observed that the builder could not take advantage of its own construction delays and impose unilateral penal consequences on the purchasers.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
