Q. We are a group of 45 homebuyers in a housing project comprising 130 flats in Borivali. Most entered into agreements for sale with the developer between January and July 2022, with possession promised by December 31, 2024. The project is 80% complete, and the developer has secured an extension of MahaRERA registration till 31 March 2027. Most buyers have paid approximately 75% to 90%. The Developer has refused to pay interest for every month of delay under section 18 of the RERA Act, citing various excuses for the delay despite the possession date having passed. He has now demanded the balance payment, threatening to levy interest if we do not pay the instalments. In fact, the amount due to us for more than a year’s delay exceeds the instalment amount payable to the developer under our agreements. Can we approach MahaRERA or the Consumer Commission for interest on delayed possession? Which is the better forum? Must all 45 homebuyers file individual complaints since our agreements were executed on different dates and some booked 1 BHK flats while others booked 2-BHK flats? What court fees apply in MahaRERA and the Consumer Commission? —Ulhas Kulkarni, Borivali
A. The promised possession date in all your cases appears to be December 31 2024. There were no force majeure events during this period that could exempt the Developer from paying interest from 1 January 2025. The Developer ought to have paid interest for every month of delay under Sec. 18 of RERA. This also constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), giving you the option of approaching either MahaRERA or the Consumer Commission. MahaRERA charges Rs5,000 plus 18% GST. Under the CPA, the fee for your group is Rs7,500.
You may file individual complaints or a group complaint. Neither RERA nor the CPA prohibits group complaints, so filing separately is not compulsory merely because individual agreements and amounts paid differ. In your circumstances, I recommend approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) as a group for all the affected homebuyers. The controversy over entertaining group complaints under the CPA was settled by the larger bench of NCDRC in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd”. The Supreme Court has subsequently reaffirmed this judgment in other cases, including “Brigade Enterprises vs. Anil Kumar Virmani”. These judgments clarify that a group complaint must demonstrate “commonality of interest” or “sameness of interest” among its members.
For determining pecuniary jurisdiction, the Ambrish Kumar and Brigade judgments clarify that the aggregate consideration paid by all group members must be considered. As 45 homebuyers have each paid 75% to 90% of the consideration, I am sure the combined amount exceeds Rs2 crore. Your complaint can therefore be filed directly before the National Commission under the CPA, 2019.
Although your agreements were registered on different dates, some buyers booked 1 BHK flats and others 2-BHK flats, and each has paid different amounts; these variations should not obstruct your group complaint. You share the same grievance against the Developer: non-payment of interest for delayed possession under Sec. 18 of RERA. Your case qualifies as a group complaint with “sameness of interest” or “commonality of interest”.
(Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: shirish50@yahoo.com)
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
