Flat after 12-year delay, in Lower Parel…
Flat after 12-year delay, in Lower Parel plus Rs 21 lakh; order against builder for delayed possession
The state consumer commission has ordered a builder’s firm to hand over a 790-sq-ft flat in Lower Parel and also pay Rs 21 lakh compensation to the buyer. The purchaser had bought the property for Rs 71 lakh in 2005 but was never given possession of the flat.
The commission refused an offer by the builder, Prarthana Enterprises, to refund Rs 64 lakh paid as booking amount, saying that problems faced by the builder in completing construction were not the buyer’s concern.
The court also said that if the flat is not handed over in two months, the builder will have to pay an additional Rs 50,000 every month to Parel resident Madhumati Lele Shrivastava. The compensation amount includes reimbursement for rent which Shrivastava had to shell out over the years.
In a complaint submitted to the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2015, Shrivastava stated that she had booked the flat on the 13th floor of the building, Prarthana Heights. An agreement was executed on December 26, 2005. She said that over a period of time she paid Rs 64 lakh, including stamp duty. Possession was to be given in December, 2007. However, it was not given, as was agreed. Shrivastava also said that due to the delay, the builder had agreed to pay Rs 50,000 a month as rent amount until possession was given. She told the commission that neither did the builder pay rent for a single month nor did he hand over possession of the flat. She sought custody of the flat and said that she was willing to pay the remaining Rs 7 lakh. As the alternative, Shrivastava said that the builder should give her a flat of similar size, with similar amenities, within 1 km of the existing flat.
The builder contended that there was a delay in handing over possession since, among various issues, there were stop work notices from the corporation from time to time.
Refuting the defense, the commission said, “It is very clear from those stop-work notices and other reasons that the complainant has no role in it and hence, the complainant cannot suffer.” The commission said that the fact remained that the builder did not hand over possession of the flat, as agreed. “Thus, there is clear- cut deficiency in service on the part of the opponents,” the commission said.
