* More than 5 years that there is no
construction activity.
* The
buyer had a dream of having his own house, but it was completely shattered by
the builder
* Caused
mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering for which we quantify the amount
of Rs. 3 lakh as compensation
* The
builder failed to respond to the allegations of the complainant
* The
commission also dismissed the builder’s plea that buyer was not a consumer.
A builder who failed
to start a Greater Noida residential project on time has landed in trouble as a
consumer court in New Delhi has directed him to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakh
and refund the over Rs.49 lakh cost of a flat to a complainant.
Delhi Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission member Mr. Salma Noor and Member (Judicial) Mr. V.K.
Gupta held R.S. Builtwell and its director guilty of deficiency in service and
gave them time till April 30, 2013 to refund the entire cost of the 1,248
square feet. flat, with interest, and compensation to complainant Mr. Arun
Patwal, a resident of Janakpuri in west Delhi.
“The complainant had
a dream of having his own house, but it was completely shattered by the
builder…obviously, this has caused mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering
for which we quantify the amount of Rs.3 lakh as compensation,” the commission
said in a recent order.
Mr. Arun Patwal
booked the flat in 2007 and was promised possession in March 2010 but when the
deadline was not met, he carried out inquiries and found that the project,
related to Leaf Tower, Singapore Residency at Greater Noida, had allegedly not
even started.
The commission told,
“We further direct that in case the amount of Rs.49.92 lakh is not paid within
30 days from the date of this order, the builder shall pay an interest of 12%
per annum after expiry of these 30 days to the date of the realisation.”
“It appears that the
builder has adapted a very noble method of collecting the money from the poor
customers & dragging such customers to litigation and refusing to refund
the payment made by such customers,” said Mr. Salma Noor.
The builder, based in
Vasundhara Enclave in East Delhi, denied allegations of delay in handing over
possession of the flat & claimed that no confirmed deadline for delivering
the ready flat was given to Patwal.
The commission slammed
the builder for his casual approach towards filing his response during the
hearing.
“The written
statement filed by the builder is not in accordance with law for the reason
that in the written statement there is no signature of the authorised signatory
and also there is no verification of signature. However, the written statement
is signed by the counsel,” the commission also said.
“The legal position
is that the written statement filed by a person or / party must be signed by
such or / authorised signatory in case of a public or private limited company,”
the commission added.
The builder failed to
respond to the allegations of the complainant that there was no development at
all or any project was being developed, told Mr. Salman Noor.
“The builder has not
contended that the project is in full swing or as to what is the status of the
project. Nothing has been stated in the written statement whether the project
is under development…” the commission further said.
“Admittedly, the
entire amount (Rs.49.92 lakh) was deposited on Nov 14, 2007, and it is more
than 5 years that there is no construction activity in respect of the project
alleged to have been launched by the builder…even the site plan has not been
filed by the builder who is getting the fruits of the huge amount for over five
years,” the commission said.
The commission also
dismissed the builder’s plea that Mr Patwal was not a consumer and was
ineligible to raise the matter under the Consumer Protection Act.
The builder has the
option of challenging the state commission’s decision in the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission.
No comments:
Post a Comment