Case No. 40 of 2013. Case: Mr. K. Madhusudhan Rao Informant Vs M/s. Lodha Healthy Constructions & Developers Private Limited. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 40 of 2013 |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(4), 19(5), 2(r), 26(2), 4, 4(2)(a) |
| Judgement Date | September 16, 2013 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
-
The Informant was one of the purchasers of a luxury villa apartment in the "Lodha Bellezza" complex to be constructed by Opposite Party (herein after referred as "OP") as a complex of luxury residential apartments East Block, Eden Square, Kukatpally Village, Hyderabad. The information disclosed:-
i. The Informant booked a residential apartment in East Block, Eden Square, Kukatpally Village, Hyderabad by name "Lodha Bellezza" bearing No. 800 on 8th floor in "Beverly Hills Tower" having a carpet area of 3282 sq ft. along with 3 car parks for a total consideration of Rs. 2,30,73,876/- (Rupees Two crores thirty lakhs seventy three thousand and eight hundred and seventy six only).
ii. The OP did not reveal the terms of sale agreement till the payment Rs. 51,11,576/- which was about 22% of the total sale consideration. After receipt of the said payment from the informant, the OP sent the agreement for sale stamped, dated and signed by the OP stating that it was sent merely for informant's signature. After going through the contents of the agreement for sale, the informant requested for amendment of certain clauses. The OP stated that it was their policy to have a uniform agreement for Sale and refused to make any changes and demanded that the agreement had to be signed as it was or the apartment booking was to be "cancelled" and that would lead to forfeiture of the 10% of the cost of apartment as cancellation charges (Rs. 23, 07,388/-).
iii. Clauses No. 19 and 24 in the Agreement for Sale showed arbitrary mismatch between the position of Purchasers and the Builders. The Purchasers were foisted with the liability to pay interest at 18% p.a. in case they failed to make any payment to the builder on due date as against interest @ 12% p.a. payable by the builder in case the builder failed to complete the apartment as per time line stipulated in the Agreement for Sale.
iv. That after the expiry of delivery date and after collecting 95% of the sale consideration, a letter was sent to the Informant for the first time on 04.08.2011 stating that there would be delay in construction and the apartment would be delivered in April, 2012 instead of 30.06.2011. Subsequently, another letter dated 13.01.2012 was sent stating that the delivery of the apartment was further postponed to June 2012. The fact that the project was not getting completed within the time stipulated was within the knowledge of the OP, since it had delayed in applying for building...
To continue reading
Request your trial