Feb 05, 2019
Updated by ss_iert007 To date: 14th dec, 2018
Bptp limited
M-11, middle circle
Connaught place
New delhi – 110001
Subject: response to your counter offer letter w. R. T. Offer of possession sent on 5th dec 2018 for unit no. G-605 on sixth floor in tower g measuring 1, 120.00 sq. Ft.in the project named “discovery park†at sector 80, faridabad, haryana.
Team bptp,
1. At the very outset, extremely poor response from your side only stinks of arrogance with no respect or fear of law. It is apparent that the bptp does not carry any respect for any signed document between bptp and home buyers and neither does it display even an iota of commitment by using the language like “the letter/email sent by you is not only unjust but is baseless and is liable to be withdrawn.†such language and attitude leaves very little to expect from bptp and only course left to be protected by the hon’ble courts. I as a committed buyer having suffered for a long time by your actions and delays had put up some of the legitimate queries to be answered at your end.
(A) how can asking for correction in difference of my paid amount as per last soa and as per offer of possession be baseless & unjust?
(B) how can asking for completion of amenities along with my unit be baseless & unjust?
(C) how can seeking clarifications w. R. T. Increase in area & cost escalation be termed as baseless?
(D) how can asking clarifications on stp, power supply, captive power and power backup be baseless?
(E) how can asking for delay penalty be treated as baseless?
(F) how can raising queries on conditional oc be baseless?
2.in fact, the offer of possession with an incomplete project, depriving me of my rights, forcing me to compromise on my life style, putting up exorbitant demands even in spite of those facilities not being in place is ex-facie unjust. I am only demanding what is legally due to me, promised by bptp through bba and the official brochures and moreover i have already paid for all such facilities, therefore ensuring completion is bptp’s duty. Any further delay and coercion to extract more money is only resulting in a bitter relationship along with physical and mental agony to me and my family.
3. As per your response you have mentioned that “offer of possession is as per the agreement executed between the partiesâ€. I again want you to refer to annexure ‘c’ specifications of the builder buyer agreement which clearly records that the following facilities and amenities were promised to be provided by m/s bptp ltd along with my apartment at the time of possession.
(A) club house
(B) swimming pool
(C) sports facilities
(D) shopping areas
According to your response itself (Refer section “facilities and amenitiesâ€), none of these facilities and amenities are going to be available till july 2019. I fail to understand then on what basis you are offering the possession of my unit if you have not yet delivered upon these agreed upon facilities and amenities associated with my unit. I have already paid 95% of my hard earned money to you for the aforesaid unit, which included payment pertaining to my flat as well as amenities promised in original project brochure and builder buyer agreement. Whereas, you have mentioned the completion dates for these promised amenities by july’2019 for which i have already paid more than 3 years back in september’2015 on casting of 12th floor slab. Failure of bptp to provide me my allotted unit as promised through bba is not only unjust but legally untenable as well.
4. As per your response, you have stated that since the agreement was executed prior to the real estate regulation act (Rera) came into force, the said agreement cannot be reopened. I wish to draw your attention to the decision of hon’ble haryana rera for complaint no. 113 of 2018 (Madhu sareen v/s m/s bptp ltd.) wherein the hon’ble court ruled that “if the act or the rules provides for dealing with certain specific situation in a particular manner, then that situation will be dealt in accordance with the act and the rules after the date of coming into force of the act and the rules. However, before the date of coming into force of the act and the rules, the provisions of the agreement shall remain applicable. Further, numerous provisions of the act saves the provisions of the agreements made between the buyer and seller.†thus, it is very clear that even though the agreement cannot be reopened, the provisions of the rera are still applicable and binding on bptp after the rera came into effect post 1st may 2017.
5. As per your response, you have mentioned that loyalty bonus has been offered in lieu of the delay compensation as per the builder buyer agreement and has been calculated at the rs. 5 per sq. Ft. Per month on the super area as per the agreement (Clause 3.3) for the time period of the delay. There are large number of decisions both by justice v. K. Jain’s bench in ncdrc and chief justice deepak mishra’s bench of supreme court deprecating in unequivocal terms this provision as discriminatory, biased and unacceptable. It is to be noted that rera act, 2016 came into force with effect from 1st may 2017. The act as well as the rules created by the state government provides for creating a level playing field between the buyers and sellers in respect of compensation for late delivery of possession of the apartments by sellers and the late payment of the dues by the buyers. Rule 15 provides “... The rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee or by the allottee to the promoter as the case may be shall be the state bank of india highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2%â€. After coming into force of the act, the clause 3.3 of the agreement shall stand amended to the extent that both the parties will compensate each other in respect of their default equivalent to sbi mclr + 2%. The rules framed by state government can come into force only with prospective effect. The said rule, therefore, shall be effective with prospective effect. Accordingly, i need to be compensated for the period of 1st may 2017 till the offer of possession i. E. 16th november 2018 at the rate of sbi mclr + 2% on the basic sales price of the apartment received by you. However, for the period of delay prior to 1st may 2017, the rate of compensation should be rs. 5 per sq. Ft. Per month as per the clause 3.3 of builder buyer agreement. Further, find below the delay compensation that is due to me as per the builder buyer agreement and rera norms stated above.
Delay calculation
Building plan sanction date
27/6/2012
Builder buyer agreement date
17/11/2012
Possession date (As per clause 3.1 of bba)
17/11/2015
Actual possession offer date
16/11/2018
Total delay (In months)
36 months
Delay (Prior to 1/5/2017)
18 months
Delay (Post 1/5/2017)
18 months
Delay penalty calculation
Delay penalty (17/11/2015 till 1/5/2017) @ rs.5 per sq. Ft. For 18 months [a]
100, 800.00
Delay penalty (1/5/2017 till 16/11/2018) @ sbi mclr + 2% for 18 months
- basic sales price (Paid till 1/5/2017)
2, 915, 883.34
- basic sales price (Paid till 14/6/2017)
2, 915, 883.34
- interest @ 10.65% (1/5/2017 to 30/6/2017) [b]
310, 541.57
- interest @ 10.65% (1/7/2017 to 16/11/2018) [c]
414055.43
Total delay penalty (As per rera provisions) [a+b+c]
825, 397.00
Reference: https://www.sbi.co.in/portal/web/interest-rates/mclr-historical-data
6. As per your response, the super area increase of the unit has been validated by third party architect design consultants and the architect certificate has been shared with me. According to architect certificate, the total covered area for tower g is 90095 sq. Ft. (I. E. 8370.09 sq. M.). However, the far as per occupation certificate (Oc) vide memo no. Zp-416/sd (Bs)/2018/30809 dated 31st october 2018 is 7872.22 sq. M. Only. Further, according to the oc the far achieved (7872.22 sq. M.) is lower than the far sanctioned (8370.0994 sq. M.) for tower g. I fail to understand why there is huge discrepancy between the covered area in the architect certificate and the oc.in addition, since the far achieved is lower than far sanctioned for my tower, it is impossible that the super area of my unit can increase under any circumstances. Find below the relevant section of the oc produced below for your reference.
7. As per your response, the escalation cost as per the clause 38 of application and clause 4.4 and 12.13 of the agreement has to be borne by me. It should be noted that the operative part of clause 12.13 is that the basic sales price is escalation free except in the situation where the cost of steel, cement and other construction materials increase beyond 10%. Accordingly, no escalation charges can be levied in case the increase in cost of these materials is less than 10%. It also means that escalation up to 10% was already accounted for in the basic price charged to me as part of the agreement. Further, i can’t be held responsible for the delay in possession as it is due to your inaction or delayed action and thus the cost escalation should be calculated while observing the construction period of 36 months agreed upon in the builder buyer agreement. There had been very little construction undertaken from 2010 till 2013 even though the building plan were sanctioned before mid of 2012. Therefore, imposing escalation charges only amounts to my mental and financial harassment at the hands of bptp along with non-completion of my unit even till date.
8. You have asked me to pay inr 86, 864.96/- against electrification and stp charges. However, you have not provided the breakup of these charges separately and moreover you have not taken care of the complete electrical load to cater to the requirement of these 5 towers.
(A) as per your response, it is stated that “the adequate load for electricity and stp have been taken and only after the project will have visible occupancy that the complete load will be provided.†why should i run the risk of facing problems and the need to run after you once the occupancy increases and the load requirement goes up? The project has pre-determined requirement of electrical load to be met, it has been charged to me and the other buyers then why should it not be ensured on ground?
(B) your response also states that “for stp - to function, stp requires minimum capacity of 100-150 families, since, sludge in the pipeline requires certain amount of pressure. If pressure is not maintained sludge/waste will get stuck and reverseâ€. Your contention might be true and i respect that but demanding entire amount towards electrification without taking entire load and non-completion of stp is unjust and is liable to cause inconvenience to me and my family few months or years later. You are duty bound to provide me the required load especially when the complete payment has been demanded.
9. As per your response, you have still not shared the detailed calculations for firefighting and power backup charges which i have repeatedly requested. I have been charged rs. 125, 600.00/- towards this head which comes out to be rs. 100 per sq. Ft. And you have not yet explained how this charge has been arrived at. You are again called upon to give the detailed calculations of firefighting and power backup charges as asked in my response to the possession offer.in addition, the power backup currently available at site is not even 25% of the required capacity. Thus, demanding full amount towards the same from each buyer and not providing the breakup of cost towards this is unjust. I demand that the entire calculated load be made available for which the demands have been generated.
10. As per your response, you have not changed your stance on gst levied on my unit. I would again like to point out that the agreed upon possession date of my unit as per clause 3.1 of builder buyer agreement is 17/11/2015 and the gst only came into effect since 2017. Further, i wish to draw your attention to the decision of hon’ble haryana rera for complaint no. 113 of 2018 (Madhu sareen v/s m/s bptp ltd.) wherein the hon’ble court clearly ruled that “for the inordinate delay by the respondent in delivering the apartments, the incidence of gst should be borne by the respondent onlyâ€. Accordingly, you are called upon to withdraw the incorrect demand of rs. 158, 950.00/- that has been levied on my unit
11. As per your response, you have still not explained how maintenance charges @ 2.75 per sq. Ft. Per month have been derived given the majority of the facilities and amenities not yet been completed and delivered. Further, you have raised arbitrarily the maintenance charges demand for the period of 12 months starting march 2019. You can only raise maintenance charges when the flat is offered for physical possession after the execution of sale deed and any such demands in lieu of maintenance charges should be issued on monthly basis and not for a period of 12 months in advance.in view of the project still being incomplete on account of non-completion of the promised amenities, the maintenance charges are called upon to be withdrawn.
12.in light of the above, you are therefore called upon to provide all the information sought once again in the points raised above with regards to your email dated 5th december 2018 titled “special discount letter & response to queriesâ€.
13. Please be informed that only after receiving the aforesaid clarifications and documents/clearances and completion of all the promised facilities, you are called upon to arrange for a site visit by me to confirm completion of every issue flagged above. Any further demands pending completion of the project in all respects in consonance with the bba only amount to unwarranted harassment of me by m/s bptp ltd and must be avoided. You are called upon to expeditiously complete the already long awaited and inordinately delayed project for me to complete the subsequent formalities in consonance with the bba.
14. You are once again called to withdraw your purported offer of possession along with the demands raised.
Thank you,
