CCI- A mere letter from the company that the super area has increased is not sufficient to claim any amount from the allotte

 In the Matter of Belaire Owners' Association vs Dlf Limited, Huda CASE NO.19/2010 the Competition Commission of India held that 

" there may be instances where at the time of actual construction, certain minor changes are required to be made in some of the drawing board plans and the building is constructed slightly different from the drawing board plan but it,  more or less, conforms to the drawing board plan. In such a case, there may be either minor (say + 2%) increase or decrease in the super area as well as the carpet area of each apartment. However, the company if substantially changes the lay-out plan resulting, in more than 2% increase or decrease in super area, the allottees' consent should be obtained for such changes in the lay-out plans. Since the price paid by the allottee is per sq. ft. of super area, the price of the apartment would increase or decrease after the actual building is constructed. In order to lay a claim on the basis of increase in super area, the company is supposed to give information to the allottee about the difference in the initial building plan and the actually-constructed building plan on the basis of which the new super area is calculated. The actual plan should be the one submitted to the authorities for completion certificate and on the basis of which occupancy certificate is granted. The calculations of increased area should be sent to the allottee, so that the allottee knows and can verify on ground as to how his super area has increased. A mere letter from the company that the super area has increased is not sufficient to claim any amount from the allottee. Thus, whenever a claim on the basis of increase in super area is made, the company is bound to give the relevant information as to how the super area stands increased.

Hence, amount charged by builder on account of delay in payment of installments which comes of ₹2,69,675/- approximately stands quashed.

 TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs Sukhbir Singh decided on 25.03.2021. Haryana RERA Panchkula

Authority has passed a detailed order vide which settled all issues and are reproduced here in brief and be read as part of this order also:

a. Stamp Duty / Misc. expenses: Authority asked respondent to withdraw charges of amount ₹11,800/- subject to the condition that all these expenses will be borne by the consumer himself at the time of conveyance deed is executed and registered.

b. Club Membership Charges: On raise a demand of ₹50,000/- by the builder on account of club membership charges which is presently not functional, therefore, the Authority decides that these charges shall be payable by the consumer only when the club becomes functional.

c. Increase in super area: Authority directed that the area covered by staircase as per principles laid down in earlier decisions by HRERA, cannot form part of super area and the same is liable to be deducted from the super area to calculate the actual cost. Considering the cost incurred by builder to construct the staircase, Authority would hold that the builder shall divide the actual cost of the staircase by the total number of flats in the building and then the proportionate cost so arrived shall then be charged from the consumer.

d. Goods and services Tax: The builder is charging GST @ 12% while according to consumer, it should be @ 5%. The Authority directed that, the rate of charging GST by the builder will be based on the date when the conveyance deed is executed and registered in favor of consumer.

e. Interest on account of delay in offer of possession: As per clause 28 of FBA, builder was obliged to give possession to the consumer within 30 months which period had already lapsed in July, 2016. And, since builder offered Fit-out Possession but hedoes not have the occupation certificate (OC) till date, so the offer cannot be considered valid and consumer is entitled to receive interest on account of delay in offering possession from the deemed date of July, 2016 to the date on which a valid possession will be offered to him after obtaining the occupation certificate. Such interest as per decision of Authority in case Madhu Sareen vs BPTP Limited is to be calculated as per Rule 15 of HRERA Rules,2017. 

The HRERA also ordered:

2) Since occupation certificate has not been obtained till date so the Fit-out possession which was offered on 04.04.2019 cannot be considered a legally valid offer.

3) In current situation, when builder himself has failed to deliver a valid possession till date to consumer, he cannot be allowed to charge interest on delay in payment of installments, Hence, amount charged by builder on account of delay in payment of installments which comes of ₹2,69,675/- approximately stands quashed.