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

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.

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...

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.