Skip to main content

State consumer body refuses to help ‘ignorant’ flat purchasers


Refusing to grant relief to, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rapped three “ignorant” flat purchasers for not getting the necessary information before making the payment.

The three paid a total of Rs. 53 lakh to a developer, Terrain Infrastructure Private Limited, for booking three flats at Vakola in Santacruz (East). They moved the consumer commission after the builder failed to give them possession.

 “These complainants are well-educated and not illiterate persons and certainly they are well aware about provisions of law,” the bench of presiding member Dhanraj Khamatkar and member Narendra Kawde said.

 “None of these complainants have produced the receipts issued to them by the opponents [developer] against the payments made,” the bench said. “Before parting with such huge amounts, the complainants should have insisted on receipts.”

Two of the complaints, Ghatkopar resident Karishma Lalwani and Byculla resident Dr Bhawarlal Jain had paid Rs. 35 lakh and Rs. 9 lakh respectively against total consideration of Rs. 50 lakh for a flat each admeasuring 771 sqft in Terrain Heights at Vakola.

The third complainant, Lamington Road resident Sushil Jain, had paid initial amount of Rs. 9 lakh out of total consideration of Rs. 45 lakh for a flat admeasuring 661 sqft.

They moved the consumer commission last year alleging deficiency on part of the developer and sought direction to the developer to handover the flats and consequent compensation for the delay.

The consumer commission, however, found that two of them had booked flats on the 7th and 9th floors, which were illegal. The commencement certificate granted by the civic body was meant for construction up to sixth floor.

“It was their [complainants] duty to find out whether or not the opponents had requisite permission to construct a particular floor,” the commission said. “Instead of believing the verbal representation, the complainants should have asked for this information and the documents and only thereafter they should have parted with the money.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more