Skip to main content

Builder to pay Rs 40 lakh for flouting development deal

The Maharashtra State consumer disputes redressal commission in a significant order held that not delivering flats under a development agreement to a landowner amounts to deficiency in service and require the developer to either hand over possession of the flats or compensate for the loss. The State commission on Tuesday set aside a 2011 order of a Sangli district forum and directed a developer to pay Rs 10 lakh, the price of the flat, each to four persons within two months or with 9 % interest if paid later.

A district forum passed a similar order in connection with a flat in Powai.

In the order passed by State commission president Justice R C Chavan and member Dhanraj Khamatkar, it said since no flats were available the developer was directed to pay the price of the flat as compensation.

The case dated back to a development agreement of 2004 between co-owners of a land with Balaji Construction in Sangli to construct a residential and commercial complex and hand over six flats of 450 sq ft super built-up area to the land owners Anusayabai Sakate, Pramod Sakate, Mandakini Dethe, Vilasini Chopade, Suhasini Lokhande and Vinod Sakate and an amount of Rs 3 lakh to mother of the co-owners. The developer handed over only two flats and hence the dispute arose.

The developer did not appear before the district forum nor did he appear before the state commission despite being served. The district forum had dismissed the complaint against the developer since the flats were no longer available.

The commissions said the developers "miserably failed to handover possession of the flat.'' It amounts to deficiency in service it said and added, "even if the flats were unavailable, the District Forum should have granted compensation—the value of the land as per the ready reckoner. It failed to take into consideration this important fact.''

In the second case, filed thorough the Consumer Welfare Association of India, Kalwa resident had accused Powai Housing Development Pvt Ltd of not handing over a flat booked in 1983. The flat buyer S B Dhas, alleged that he had booked the 520 square feet flat in an upcoming building and paid Rs 26,000 in five installments. 15th May, 2002. Dhas however, received a letter on May 15, 2002 telling him that the building was not constructed due to litigation pending before the Bombay High Court since 1993. When he sought a refund, he got no response from the construction company. Dhas then filed the complaint before Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 2010.

Granting his plea for a refund with nine percent interest from the date of the last payment in 1986, the form ordered the company to pay him a compensation of Rs 1.05 lakh. "The fact remains that the complainant is deprived from his flat due to litigation. The Opponent received payment from the complainant. The Opponent is responsible for the litigation. Therefore, the Opponent is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the suffering of the complainant," the forum said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Builder-to-pay-Rs-40-lakh-for-flouting-development-deal/articleshow/38585911.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...