A developer cannot escape his contractual obligation towards the buyer in a developed property by claiming that he had outsourced the development work to another builder, the Pune district consumer disputes redressal forum has held.
In a recent order, the forum, headed by president V P Utpat, ordered a construction firm in Mundhwa to deliver the possession of a 180 sq ft shopping block to the complainant, Meena Harish Bhujbal, with whom he had a registered sale agreement.
"As an alternative, if the developer expresses his inability to deliver possession of the block then he should pay the prevailing market price," the forum, which also comprised Mohan Patankar and Kshitija Kulkarni as members, ordered.
The three-member bench further directed the firm, Sai Constructions, to pay Rs 25,000 damages to Bhujbal on account of deficiency in service by not delivering possession of the shopping block as promised and causing physical and mental agony to the complainant. The damages are to be paid within six weeks from July 7 when the order was passed.
On January 26, 1996, the construction firm had entered into an agreement with Kashinath alias Shivaji Tukaram Gaikwad, owner of a land at city survey numbers 1172 to 1177 in Hadapsar, for development of a residential-cum-commercial property. Gaikwad had executed a power of attorney in favour of the developer.
For the residential and commercial blocks, the construction firm had entered into individual agreements with the buyers, including Bhujbal, who had decided to purchase a 180 sq ft shopping block for Rs 2.16 lakh.
An agreement was signed between Bhujbal and the construction firm on December 29, 2001 and the same was also registered with the sub-registrar's office in Haveli. Bhubal paid Rs 50,000 to the firm through a cheque and the latter had agreed to deliver possession by December 31, 2002. However, after the block was ready, the firm's partner Anil Tukaram Zhodge started giving evasive replies when Bhujbal asked for delivery of the block.
Bhujbal had sent notices to the firm but, the latter responded with false replies and on November 4, 2004, informed her that the development work of the property was given to another builder, Sudam Associates. Since year 2003 till February 2014 when Bhujbal eventually moved a consumer complaint through her lawyer Mahendra K Tilekar, the construction firm kept ignoring her notices. Bhujbal demanded Rs 9.90 lakh compensation and cost of litigation.
Zhodge, the respondent, did not turn up despite notices by the forum and the latter proceeded ex-parte against him. The forum observed that by not delivering possession of the block, the construction firm was liable for deficiency in service.
It ordered that Bhujbal should deposit with the forum the Rs 1.66 lakh remainder of the amount payable towards the block and hand possession of the block over or pay the prevailing market price to Bhujbal.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Developer-cant-escape-liability-by-outsourcing/articleshow/48106090.cms
In a recent order, the forum, headed by president V P Utpat, ordered a construction firm in Mundhwa to deliver the possession of a 180 sq ft shopping block to the complainant, Meena Harish Bhujbal, with whom he had a registered sale agreement.
"As an alternative, if the developer expresses his inability to deliver possession of the block then he should pay the prevailing market price," the forum, which also comprised Mohan Patankar and Kshitija Kulkarni as members, ordered.
The three-member bench further directed the firm, Sai Constructions, to pay Rs 25,000 damages to Bhujbal on account of deficiency in service by not delivering possession of the shopping block as promised and causing physical and mental agony to the complainant. The damages are to be paid within six weeks from July 7 when the order was passed.
On January 26, 1996, the construction firm had entered into an agreement with Kashinath alias Shivaji Tukaram Gaikwad, owner of a land at city survey numbers 1172 to 1177 in Hadapsar, for development of a residential-cum-commercial property. Gaikwad had executed a power of attorney in favour of the developer.
For the residential and commercial blocks, the construction firm had entered into individual agreements with the buyers, including Bhujbal, who had decided to purchase a 180 sq ft shopping block for Rs 2.16 lakh.
An agreement was signed between Bhujbal and the construction firm on December 29, 2001 and the same was also registered with the sub-registrar's office in Haveli. Bhubal paid Rs 50,000 to the firm through a cheque and the latter had agreed to deliver possession by December 31, 2002. However, after the block was ready, the firm's partner Anil Tukaram Zhodge started giving evasive replies when Bhujbal asked for delivery of the block.
Bhujbal had sent notices to the firm but, the latter responded with false replies and on November 4, 2004, informed her that the development work of the property was given to another builder, Sudam Associates. Since year 2003 till February 2014 when Bhujbal eventually moved a consumer complaint through her lawyer Mahendra K Tilekar, the construction firm kept ignoring her notices. Bhujbal demanded Rs 9.90 lakh compensation and cost of litigation.
Zhodge, the respondent, did not turn up despite notices by the forum and the latter proceeded ex-parte against him. The forum observed that by not delivering possession of the block, the construction firm was liable for deficiency in service.
It ordered that Bhujbal should deposit with the forum the Rs 1.66 lakh remainder of the amount payable towards the block and hand possession of the block over or pay the prevailing market price to Bhujbal.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Developer-cant-escape-liability-by-outsourcing/articleshow/48106090.cms
Comments
Post a Comment