Skip to main content

Builder to pay woman 2 lakh for delay in handing over flat

The state consumer commission has penalised a builder for failing to hand over the possession of a ready flat booked by a Dombivli resident four years ago, despite receiving a substantial part of the payment.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Aditi Land & Infrastructure Developers to pay Pushpa Mehta a compensation of Rs2 lakh for not giving her the Ghatkopar flat, even though she had paid Rs32 lakh of the Rs35 lakh due to them.

The commission has given the developer two months to hand over the 675-sq ft flat, failing which the developer will have to shell out an additional penalty of Rs1,000 a day.

Pushpa and her late husband Jayantilal had booked the flat In July 2009. The developer executed a sale deed after they paid a booking amount of Rs12 lakh. The couple then got a home loan from the Zoroastrian Co-operative Bank, which advanced them Rs13 lakh, credited directly to the developer’s account.

They also got insurance for the flat and, by August 2011, had paid Rs1.01 lakh towards its premium.

Over the years, the couple continued to pay bank loan installments of Rs26,106 a month.

The final Rs3 lakh was to be paid to the developers when they were given possession.

In August 2011, the couple approached the state commission after the developer failed to hand over possession of the ready flat by January 2011, as stipulated in the sale deed.

The developer contested the complaint saying they had never refused to hand over the flat and said they would do so after the construction work was done and all the necessary certificates from the civic authorities had been obtained.

The developer further contended that the couple had not paid the entire amount, and sought dismissal of the complaint.

The consumer commission, however, dismissed the developer’s contentions.

“This complaint is the best example of how builders exploit prospective purchasers,” the commission said.

The state commission held the developer guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to pay Rs2 lakh to Mehta towards compensation for mental agony for the delay and Rs25,000 towards the cost of the litigation.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Builder-to-pay-woman-2-lakh-for-delay-in-handing-over-flat/Article1-1104447.aspx

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

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more