Hyderabad: No flats, Emaar told to pay up

Hyderabad: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Emaar MGF Land Ltd and builder Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd to pay back the money it collected but failed to give flats at Emaar Towers.

The commission, while granting relief to an aged woman, directed Emaar to return the amount of Rs 1.93 crore with 10 per cent interest.

Woman paid Rs 1.9 crore, waited 8 years for flat
The complainant, Nallamala Devika Rani Rao, 72, wife of the late N. Radhakrishna Rao of Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, noted that she had not got possession of her house even after eight years at Emaar Towers in Manikonda.

Following a CBI case, the undivided AP government prohibited any transactions due to which Emaar MGF failed to give possession of the apartment and didn’t register the sale deed in favour of the complainant.

The judgement will have huge impact as there are several VIP customers whose money is locked up in the project following the CBI cases and government action.

Ms Rani, in her complaint, alleged that she had paid Rs 1.93 crore in instalments from 2008 to 2010 to Emaar Hills Township for the purchase of a three-bedroom flat with a super built-up area of 2,723 sq. ft in Tower B at Manikonda. She paid the final instalment in November 2010 after the delivery of the flat was promised for mid-2011. As per the agreement Emaar was to complete the construction within 36 months from the commencement date, May 2, 2008, with a grace period of six months.

The Emaar companies contended that the flats were almost ready. They claimed that work had come to a standstill following the notification issued by the AP government on October 8, 2010. The government had then stated that Emaar Hill Township and Boulder Hills Leisure Private Limited had entered into a development agreement-cum-GPA without obtaining prior permission from the APIIC which was against the interest of the corporation.

Emaar counsels argued that the company which had spent about '700 crore on the project would be in a precarious position. Counsels also contended that this was a dispute between the AP and TS governments and writs were pending before the High Court, besides a civil case.

The commission, headed by Justice J.M. Malik, in its judgement observed: “There is not even a scintilla of doubt in our mind that the opposite party has failed to establish its bonafides. The principal deficiency on its part is that it went on accepting the instalment unashamedly even after the notification was published. The opposite party is renowned promoter and builder.... this lady being a widow should have been treated with kid gloves. However, the opposite party was interested to feather its own nest... it was well-explained by counsel for the complainant that in the evening of her life, she wants to live all alone and lead a peaceful life separately, i.e., away from the house situated in Banjara Hills. It is well said, ‘You are a king by your own fireside as much as any monarch in his throne”.”

The commission observed, “It cannot be said with guarantee that during her lifetime she would get this house or not. It is well said that justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined.”