Mumbai: Consumer Commission Orders Developers To Pay ₹39 Lakh Interest And ₹2.5 Lakh Compensation for Delayed Flat Possession

The state consumer commission in an order has directed developers to give possession of a flat and interest on ₹47.10 lakh that purchasers paid for it. The interest amount, calculated by applying two separate interest rates as directed by the commission based on different periods of time comes to more than ₹39 lakh. The commission also directed ₹2.50 lakh to be paid towards mental harassment and litigation costs. The compensation is directed to be paid within a month and the flat within two months of the order.

The order dated July 5 (uploaded recently) was passed by Justice SP Tavade, president and KM Lawande, member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). It was passed on a complaint of Thane resident Naresh and Jyoti Sahita against M/s Shanklesha Constructions and The Mutha Constructions.

The complainants were in need of a house and booked a flat with Shanklesha. The flat was booked in 2012 in a project in Thane. They paid up to ₹47 lakh over a period of time for which they even took a loan. After making initial payments, the developers gave an agreement of sale and promised to hand over the flat by 2017. When the Sahitas did not get possession, they sent a legal notice.

Developers took ₹13.10 lakh before plan sanction

They even filed Right to Information (RTI) applications through which they got to know that the developers had taken ₹13.10 lakh from them even before the plan was sanctioned.

The complainants had also paid ₹34 lakh by taking a loan from the bank for which they paid interest at 8,60% per annum.

When there was no possession handed over despite serving of notices, complaints approached the commission. At the commission, the two developers did not file a written reply and the proceedings moved ahead. During the hearing, the commission observed that when complainants filed an RTI, they got to know that money was taken even before the plan was cleared. It added that even after paying 99% of the flat value, it was not handed over to the complainants which resulted in a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of developers.