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

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

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more