https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313039 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, partially allowed the complaint against a builder regarding delayed possession and excess area charges. The Commission held that the builder's demand for excess area payment was unjustified as no proper documentation or comparison between original and final approved plans was provided. The practice of charging excess area without transparency was deemed an unfair trade practice. The Commission cancelled the excess area demand and directed the builder to issue revised demand within 30 days, followed by possession handover within 30 days. Compensation was limited to the agreed Rs.7.50 per sq.ft. per month for possession delay, following SC precedent in DLF Homes Panchkula case. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:50:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313039 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, partially allowed the complaint against a builder regarding delayed possession and excess area charges. The Commission held that the builder's demand for excess area payment was unjustified as no proper documentation or comparison between original and final approved plans was provided. The practice of charging excess area without transparency was deemed an unfair trade practice. The Commission cancelled the excess area demand and directed the builder to issue revised demand within 30 days, followed by possession handover within 30 days. Compensation was limited to the agreed Rs.7.50 per sq.ft. per month for possession delay, following SC precedent in DLF Homes Panchkula case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313039