Mumbai: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Mumbai, has given a series of directives to a Pune developer to give home buyers from Mumbai, Pune and Bengaluru various amenities as mentioned in agreements, 10% interest on amount paid and ₹5.5 lakh towards mental agony, illegally returning amount paid in some cases and litigation costs.
Commission president SP Tavade and judicial member ST Barne passed the five orders on a complaint by Mumbai residents Arvind and Pratibha Sawant, three Pune residents – Poonam Kolambe and Vipin Menon, Amol Sugandhi, Suresh Hattekar – and Bengaluru residents Ashish Kumar Jain and Preeti Jain. They had filed a case against Pune’s Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd.
Complainants had formed Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society with 166 members
The complainants had formed the Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society with 166 members and decided to buy properties from Teirth who were constructing five buildings, 20 twin bungalows and 22 row houses on an estate spread over an area of 3 lakh sq mt in Pune.
While Mumbai-based Sawants decided to book a row house for ₹40.95 lakh, the rest decided to book row houses or residential flats of different sizes and areas that cost different amounts. Kolambe and Menon’s flats were priced at ₹20.19 lakh each, Sugandhi’s flat for ₹40.95 lakh and Jain’s for ₹26.68 lakh. An agreement was done and payment up to 95% was made in most cases.
It was agreed that physical possession would be given at different times in 2010
As per agreement, the developers agreed to provide a host of luxe amenities like clubs, pool and babysitting areas. It was agreed that physical possession would be given at different times in 2010. It was also decided in some cases (Mumbai buyers) that if the possession is not given 10% interest would be paid on the amount paid or on the actual interest of loan instalments. When the possession wasn’t given or possession given but amenities not provided, they filed a complaint with the commission.
Delay due to change in plans and rules by authorities
The developer contended that there was a delay because of change in plans and rules by the authorities that was not in their hands. It stated that certain statutory compliances didn’t come by and hence it could not give possession on time. Teirth also contended that they were yet to get the last instalment.
The commission, however, stated that permissions did come by from time to time and the remaining amount wasn’t taken despite buyers wanting to pay; in some cases, it was taken but possession not given. The commission said that the developer forcibly tried to return money without interest and, in some cases, did not provide amenities, which is a deficiency in service. It then directed the compensation to be paid in 30 days of the order.
