DLF Valley of Disillusion

Review On DLF Group, Chandigarh

Having built a high opinion about DLF after having witnessed the gigantic effort put in by them in helping house the millions of refugees from Pakistan in 1947 in Delhi, I took an opportunity, when it offered itself, in 2010 to book a flat with DLF hoping for a seamless delivery, in due time, of a well-built quality flat for my residence. Thereby I let my self in for rude awakening to the present day reality.

I applied for and was allotted a 2255 Sft. Flat in DLF’s Valley in Panchkula. However, prior to the issue of the allotment letter on 3.4.2010, I was asked to sign an undertaking that, in the event of any major alteration/modification resulting in+/- 25% change in the saleable area, the change in area and price will be informed to the applicant in writing and the applicant will have no objection and disagreement in this regard. Clause 10 of the Buyers Agreement subsequently sent for my signature further provided that this change shall be as per the sole opinion and as determined by the Company.

The most salient feature of the Company’s interaction with me(the customer) during the 8 years since booking of the flat is that such interaction would consist only of the Company’s communications to the customer by way of demand letters, default notices etc. and the customer will not receive any reply to his communications seeking any clarification or information.  In one instance, when I sought some clarification relating to the 9th demand, I got no reply but the Ist default notice followed in due course. I reminded my clarification. Again, no reply but the second default notice arrived. I persisted with my demand for clarification. No reply but the final default notice came warning me that non-payment will result in my flat being resold and allotment being canceled. By that time, I had already paid over 61 lakhs to the Company and waited over 4 years. So I sought the assistance of an Advocate who managed to convince the DLF Officials to furnish the required clarification. I remitted the demanded installment the very day I received the clarification and in course of time was also made to pay interest for the delay caused by their inaction. Yet this delay was used as a ploy to deny me compensation for delay in offering possession of the flat.  However, the Buyers Agreement, entirely one-sided as it was, could not sustain such action and the  DLF had to retract their position.

The “Buyers Agreement” was sent for my signature on 3.1.2011. Although called an ‘agreement”, it was more like a commitment by the buyer to abide by the actions and comply with the demands of the company on pain of defined actions by the Company.( Such agreements had been termed as ‘one-sided” by the courts and were one of the factors leading to the establishment of Real Estate Regulation Authority(RERA) by an act of Parliament). I found from the Agreement that the saleable area of the flat allotted to me had been increased from 2255 Sft. To 2525 Sft. with a corresponding increase in cost. I sought to know the reason but realizing that I could expect no reply, I signed the agreement as, otherwise, I had to be ready to forego the allotment.

The project was finally completed by June 2017(51 months behind schedule) and an offer of possession was issued to allottees on 30.6.2017. The offer was accompanied by a final statement of account showing amounts payable before possession could be given. I found that the statement demanded about Rs. 6lakhs for a further increase in the saleable area of the flat to 2766 Sft. I had not been previously informed about this increase as required in the agreement but questioning this increase would be fraught with unpleasant consequences. I had to acquiesce and paid up the money as demanded.

The power to reduce customers to mere doormats  is derived by the builders from:

(i) Ability to keep the political establishment of the time well disposed and the concerned bureaucrats in line. It is obviously due to this factor that notification of RERA in Haryana was delayed by nearly two years. Had this been issued at the same time as the Centre did, the Company might have found it difficult to impose the last minute increase in saleable area.

(ii) The expensive litigation which might  span

a lifetime. It is more expensive for those not residing at the same location as the court of jurisdiction.

I was asked to take possession of my flat before 30.11.2017 failing which holding charges would be levied. When I wrote back saying I would come on 24.11.2017, I was advised to come after 20.12.2017 and there would no holding charges. I visited the site on 26.12.2017 for taking possession but found the flat not ready for taking over. I give a list running into 5 pages for rectification. I was told it would take a month.

I mailed DLF about the above development on 29.12.2017, requested for expediting the process and advising me when I would be given possession.  I have followed this up with 4 emails over the four months that have since elapsed but DLF has not bothered to even acknowledge any of them In one of my emails, I enquired: ”Is a DLF customer entitled to  the elementary courtesy of having his mails replied.?”  I have been answered with contemptuous silence. Having arrived at a dead end and not knowing what to do next, I decided to explore the Mouthshut. Hence this review. - - -      -

---