Buying a Home? Understanding Built-Up Area vs. Super Built-Up Area.
05 June 2024
Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights | Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate
A homebuyer has been granted a reprieve in their fight against a builder over the super built-up area of their villa. The National Consumer Commission (NCC) recently remanded the case back to the District Forum for reconsideration, citing inconsistencies in the handling of a similar case within the same project.
The buyer had booked a villa with a promised built-up area of 1200 sq. ft. However, during the final payment stage, the builder demanded an additional sum based on a super built-up area of 1427.78 sq. ft. This significantly higher figure included common areas like balconies and staircases, which the buyer argued they shouldn't be charged for.
The crux of the dispute lies in the difference between built-up area and super built-up area. Built-up area refers to the usable floor space within a property's walls, while super built-up area incorporates common areas and walls. Builders often base their charges on the latter, leading to disagreements with buyers who expect to pay only for the usable space.
The buyer's initial complaint was dismissed by both the District Forum and the State Commission. These forums reportedly upheld the builder's right to adjust the area based on industry norms and the agreement's provisions allowing for changes.
A critical turning point came in the form of another case from the same project (Uman Paul Singh vs. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.). In that instance, the State Commission had acknowledged an increased area but deemed it significantly lower than what the builder claimed (44.3 sq. ft. vs. 227.78 sq. ft.). This inconsistency in applying the same principle to similar situations prompted the NCC to intervene.
The NCC acknowledged some merit in the buyer's arguments, particularly regarding the inconsistency with the similar case. They set aside the previous orders and remanded the case back to the District Forum. This essentially means the District Forum will have to re-evaluate the complaint while considering the precedent set by the Uman Paul Singh case.
The remand offers the homeowner a renewed chance to seek a partial refund for the additional area they were charged for. The District Forum will now be obligated to hear both parties and deliver a fresh verdict based on the specific details of the case and the precedent set by the similar case.