NEGOTIATION ACTIVITY

PSDA- Alternative Dispute Resolution

Submitted to: Dr. Ashu Dhiman

(Assistant Professor, VSLLS)

Submitted by: Mimansha Prakash, 16717703821

Palak Goel, 17517703821
Prachi Ray, 16317703821
Radhika Choubey, 18417703821

Semester: V, Section: D

VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES-TECHNICAL CAMPUS,
Delhi
 REPORT

Negotiation is a fundamental process employed in various aspects of human interaction, from

business transactions and legal disputes to personal relationships. It is a dynamic and strategic
communication process where two or more parties engage to reach a mutual agreement or
resolve differences. The primary aim of negotiation is to find common ground, achieve
consensus, and address the interests and concerns of all parties involved. On 13/12/2023 a
PSDA Activity was organised in furtherance of these goals so that students could understand
the procedure of negotiation and its multiple theories wherein, our team engaged as well to
learn more.

ROLE PLAYED BY EACH PARTY:

Our team consisted of Prachi Ray, Palak Goel, Radhika Choubey, and Mimansha Prakash who
diligently played the roles they were assigned which is as follows:

Prachi Ray- The role played by her was that of the Counsel of the Requesting Party, that is,
Papija, which is a well-known developer in their area. Her role was merely of a facilitator to
guide her client reach to a settlement which serves the interest of Papija Developers. The
counsel proposed the agenda of the negotiation which constituted the main discussion of the
problem that we were supposed to negotiate and settle.

Palak Goel- The role played by her was that of the Client of the Requesting Party, that is,
Papija Developers. She on behalf of Papija Developers retained the authority to make finals
decisions on key issues and accepting or rejecting proposed terms. She had the responsibility
of clearly articulating the client’s goals and priorities for the negotiation. She had to weigh out
the potential risks and benefits of different negotiation outcomes and reach to a settlement
that’s feasible for her company.

Radhika Choubey- The role played by her was that of the Counsel of the Responding Party,
that is, the Mittals who were affected by the inconvenience caused to them due the residential
flats provided by Papija Developers. Her role was to engage in discussions with the counsel of
the opposite party in all the legal aspects to facilitate the negotiation process. She maintained
an effective negotiation strategy throughout the negotiation process which would help her
client reach the desired settlement that would favour them financially.
Mimansha Prakash- She played the role of the client on behalf of the Responding Party, that
is, Mittals. She reserved all the rights to take all the major decisions on behalf of the Mittals
and engaged directly with the opposing party when necessary to build a rapport or address
specific concerns. She balanced the need to assert interests with the importance of maintaining
positive relationships for future interactions. She granted the final approval for negotiated
agreements before they are formalized.

NEGOTIATION PROCESS:

The negotiation process between Mr and Mrs Mittal (consumer) and the Papija developer can
be outlined as follows:

Initial Discussions:

- Both parties presented their opening statements outlining their concerns, expectations, and
desired outcomes.

- Mittals emphasized the impact of substandard construction and the sealing of apartments on
their lives and the lives of other affected homeowners.

- Papija Developer acknowledged the lack of approvals but highlighted their commitment to
resolving the matter amicably.

Developer’s offer to settle:

-Papija developer, upon learning about the case, invited the Mittals to negotiate and offered to
settle the dispute.

-Papija acknowledged the lack of approval from HUDA, clarified their non-commitment to
subsequent plan approval or occupancy Certificate, and proposed compensation of 25 lakhs.

Consumers’ Concerns:

-Mittals, along with approximately 50 other customers, expressed their grievances regarding
the illegal construction, sub-standard materials, and subsequent sealing of the apartment.

- Mittals highlighted their reliance on the developers’ assurances and the absence of NOC and
OC during the injury stage.
Presentation of Confidential Information:

- Papija Developer presented confidential information, acknowledging that they had not
applied for plan approval at the time of the Mittals' inquiry but asserted that this was
communicated to customers accurately.

- Mittals highlighted their discovery of Papija's lack of applications for NOC and OC to HUDA
during the inquiry, expressing concern about the transparency of information.

Compensation Discussion:

- Papija Developer proposed a compensation amount of 25 lacs to assist the Mittals in covering
rent for three months in a nearby vicinity.

- Mittals proposed adjusting the compensation amount against their investment of Rs. 42 lacs
for purchasing a flat in "Sarathya," another residential scheme of the same developer.

ZONE OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT:

In negotiation, a Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) refers to the range in which an agreement
is possible and both parties are willing to settle. Determining the final negotiated amount in a
specific case like this involved considering the interests and priorities of both parties. In this
scenario, the resolution came out to be:

Refund of Amount Paid:

- Mittals initially paid Rs. 42 lakh for the flat.
- Papija agreed to a partial refund, Rs. 35 lakh, considering the time the Mittals spent in
possession.

Alternative Accommodation:

- Mittals incurred costs for finding alternative accommodation. They request Rs. 2 lakh
as compensation.
- Papija offered Rs. 1.5 lakh as a contribution towards the Mittals' expenses in securing
new housing.

Total Negotiated Amount:

- Refund: Rs. 35 lakh

 - Alternative Accommodation: Rs. 1.5 lakh
- TOTAL: Rs. 36.5 lakh

It's important to note that the actual ZOPA would depend on the specific circumstances, legal
implications, and the willingness of both parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The
negotiation process should involve open communication, understanding each other's
perspectives, and finding a compromise that is fair and acceptable to both the Mittals and
Papija.

SETTLEMENT REACHED:

Considering the facts and confidential information disclosed, in the end it was decided by all
the parties involved that:

- Papija Builders agree to pay Rs. 30 lacs to Mittals as compensation in damages and loss
of their residence that they are facing.
- Papija agrees to provide financial assistance to cover Mittals' rent for three months,
helping them transition.
- Mittals express willingness to adjust the compensation amount of Rs. 30 lacs towards
the purchase of a flat in Papija's "Sarathya" residential scheme.
- Both parties agree to withdraw legal cases against each other and agree to not further
approach the court in this matter fostering an amicable resolution.
- Mittals acknowledge the violation of norms for commercial use and agree to cease such
activities immediately.
- Both parties commit to maintaining the confidentiality of this settlement, preventing
disclosure of terms and details to third parties.

This proposed settlement aims to resolve the dispute amicably, providing compensation, rent
assistance, and an option for Mittals to invest in another property developed by Papija. The
withdrawal of legal cases and adherence to the terms outlined in this settlement will signify the
mutual commitment to moving forward cooperatively and constructively.