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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more