Q. My friend has paid Rs55 lakh to the builder for his project in Andheri (East) and he has the Agreement for Sale duly registered, which shows the date of possession December 2021. The project is considerably delayed and there are no prospects of the flat getting ready for next two years. He has therefore cancelled the booking and asked the builder to refund the money with interest and compensation. I want to know under such circumstances, which is a better forum to lodge the complaint for refund – MahaRERA or Consumer Court?
Alok Hardikar Vile Parle East
A. Home-buyer has both MahaRERA and Consumer Court platforms available for agitating his claim for refund. However, one cannot file complaints on both these platforms. Let us see advantages and disadvantages of pursuing the complaint on these two platforms.
If your friend decides to go to Consumer Court, he will have to file Complaint before Maharashtra State Consumer Commission because the amount paid exceeds Rs 50 lakh and is less than Rs 2 crore. In Consumer Commissions time line for disposal of cases is 90 days as against 60 days in MahaRERA. However, the ground reality is that none of these two platforms adhere to these timelines and there is a delay on both these platforms.
One advantage in filing Complaint with MahaRERA is RERA has prescribed the rate of interest to be paid by the developer in case of refund on account of delay, which is MCLR plus 2 %. This is a right of homebuyer under RERA and cannot be lowered by any MahaRERA Bench. In consumer court it is the discretion of the bench and the bench can award even lesser rate of interest. Another advantage in filing Complaint before MahaRERA is that once the order for refund with interest and compensation is made by the MahaRERA authority, if the builder wants to go into appeal against such order, he has to first deposit with MahaRERA the entire amount ordered to be refunded. In case of Consumer Commission such amount to be deposited while filing the appeal is only 50%.
Q. Two side-by-side cooperative housing societies decided to go for joint redevelopment. Each co-operative housing societies gave the consent to the developer in the presence of the authorized officer from the deputy registrar office as per the guidelines under section 79A dated July 4, 2019. Both the CHSs initiated the amalgamation process and a new society was formed. Now does the new amalgamated society need to undertake the consent process once again to officially announce the developer? or the consent given earlier separately by each society is still valid / sufficient? Kindly share your opinion.
Shashikant Prabhu
A. Guidelines issued on July 4, 2019 under Sec 79A of MCS Act do not cover the situation narrated by you. When two co-operative housing societies amalgamate into one single co-operative society, a new legal entity comes into existence. Although earlier both these societies have complied with the guidelines in respect of the selection of the developer for the proposed re-development project, there is no compliance of these guidelines by the new amalgamated society.
Under the circumstances, in my opinion, strictly speaking fresh consent by the new amalgamated society for selection of the developer is called for. This is because the development agreement would be signed and executed by the new society and its new officebearers. Nonetheless, you may write to the DDR who must have issued the NOC earlier after such compliance by the two separate societies.
If the DDR gives in writing that fresh compliance is not required after the amalgamation of the two societies, you may go ahead based on the old consent given in the meetings of the two old societies. However, you will also note that even such a letter in writing by the DDR is open to challenge by any member in the court of law.
(Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Send queries on email: shirish50@yahoo.com)
