top of page
Search

Big Win for Homebuyers: HARERA Panchkula Orders Compensation for 9-Year Delay in BPTP Parklands Case

  • Writer: rit arora
    rit arora
  • Jan 3
  • 3 min read
HARERA Panchkula Orders Compensation for 9-Year Delay in BPTP Parklands Case
HARERA Panchkula Orders Compensation for 9-Year Delay in BPTP Parklands Case

In the case of Renu Mathur vs. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (BPTP Group), the Authority ruled in favor of the homebuyers, ordering the builder to pay significant delay interest and quashing illegal demands for increased super area and non-existent club charges.


Case Background: A Decade of Waiting

The complainants booked an independent residential floor in the project "Park 81", located in Sector-81, Faridabad, developed by Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (a sister concern of BPTP Limited).


  • Booking Date: 2009-2010.

  • Agreement Date: July 07, 2011.

  • Promised Possession: July 07, 2014 (36 months + grace period).

  • Actual Status: Possession was delayed by approximately 9 years.


Despite paying over ₹35.9 Lakhs (approx. 95% of the cost), the buyers were left waiting without a home. When the builder finally offered possession in June 2023, it came with a shock: a demand for extra payments based on increased area, club charges, and cost escalation.


The Builder's Defense: "Settlement" and "Force Majeure"

The developers (Respondents) attempted to defend the delay and the demands using two common tactics:


  1. The "Force Majeure" Excuse: The builder claimed delays were due to environmental bans, the COVID-19 pandemic, and NGT orders.

  2. The "Settlement" Trap: The builder argued that one of the complainants (the husband) had signed a "Full and Final Settlement" in June 2023, accepting a nominal compensation, and therefore the complaint should be dismissed.


The HARERA Verdict: Key Rulings for Homebuyers

The Hon'ble Authority, rejected the builder's arguments and delivered a pro-consumer order on December 16, 2024.


1. Delay Compensation Awarded

The Authority ruled that the builder failed to deliver possession by July 2014. The "Force Majeure" plea was rejected because the due date (2014) expired long before the COVID-19 pandemic or the specific NGT bans cited.

  • The Order: The builder must pay interest on the total amount paid by the buyer from the deemed date of possession (07.07.2014) until the date of a valid offer of possession.

  • Calculated Amount: As of the order date, the accrued interest payable to the buyer stood at ₹39,60,181/-.


2. The "One-Signature" Settlement is Invalid

HARERA noted that the original agreement was signed by two allottees (Husband and Wife). However, the alleged "Settlement Agreement" was signed only by the husband. The Authority declared that without the signature of both parties, the settlement is not legally binding, protecting the buyers' rights to seek full legal recourse.


3. No Payment for Unjustified "Super Area" Increase

The builder demanded payment for an increase in the unit's area from 1478 sq. ft. to 1536 sq. ft..

  • The Ruling: The Authority observed that the Occupancy Certificate (OC) approved an area of only 1251.62 sq. ft. The builder cannot charge for area "over and above" what is approved in the OC. The demand for the increased super area was quashed.


4. Illegal Club & Escalation Charges Quashed

  • Club Charges: The builder demanded ₹50,000 for club membership. HARERA ruled that since the club was not operational at the time of possession, this demand was unjustified.

  • Cost Escalation: A demand for ₹1.52 Lakhs in cost escalation was rejected because the delay was solely the builder's fault. A buyer cannot be penalized for the builder's inefficiency.


5. GST vs. VAT

Since the possession was due in 2014 (before the GST regime), the Authority ruled that GST is not applicable. However, the buyers are liable to pay VAT as per the original agreement.


The complainants were represented by Lex Horizon through its team of Advocate, Mr. Arjun Kundra.


Find the judgment here


bottom of page