Pune builder ordered to refund Rs 10.72L

Sakal Times
Thursday, 26 October 2017

The complainant had booked a flat worth Rs 15.91 lakh in a construction scheme of the builder. Fakir had paid a total of Rs 10.72 lakh, which is more than 60 per cent of the total cost. The builder did not execute any agreement for sale of flat. The complainant had issued a legal notice in 2013 for registration and possession of the flat. However, the builder did not comply

Pune: The district consumer forum has ordered a builder to refund Rs 10.72 lakh with 9 per cent interest since 2012, for not registering a flat after taking money.

Amer Fakir of Yerwada had filed a complaint against Prayoja City, Vadgaon Khurd, and its partner Sandeep Jani in 2015. The builder has been also ordered to pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation cost.

The complainant had booked a flat worth Rs 15.91 lakh in a construction scheme of the builder. Fakir had paid a total of Rs 10.72 lakh, which is more than 60 per cent of the total cost. The builder did not execute any agreement for sale of flat. The complainant had issued a legal notice in 2013 for registration and possession of the flat. However, the builder did not comply.

The complainant moved the consumer court demanding direction to the builder to hand over the possession of the flat after taking balance amount or refund his money with interest.

On the other hand, the builder opposed the consumer complaint. They filed their written version on record. It is their contention that the complainant did not pay the stage-wise installments though reminded from time to time. The complainant is not entitled to interest on the amount paid or for the possession of the flat, the builder stated before the forum.
The forum held that there is a deficiency in service by the builder. “No agreement has been executed between the parties, which is a mandatory obligation on the part of the opposite parties under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963. Since no agreement is entered into, the insistence of stage-wise payment by the complainant to the opposite parties is not tenable since the complainant is unaware of the stage-wise payment and the terms and conditions,” the judgment states.

Related News