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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more