Mumbai Consumer Commission Pulls Up Builder Over Incomplete MHADA Housing Project

Mumbai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mumbai Suburban, has held developer S. Constructions guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to complete construction work on two MHADA residential plots in Mulund despite collecting substantial payments from the purchasers. The commission directed the developer to pay Rs 1.93 lakh with 6 per cent annual interest along with Rs 20,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000 towards the litigation costs to the complainants.

The complaint was filed by the Consumer Welfare Association along with Mulund residents Shakti and Vidnya S. Sawant against Radheshyam Cooperative Housing Society and S. Constructions. The complainants alleged that they had paid around Rs 3.38 lakh towards construction of two residential plots but later discovered that the work remained incomplete despite claims by the developer that the project had been completed.

According to the complainants, the developer had assured them that construction would be completed within two years from payment of the first instalment. However, an architect’s inspection conducted in 2009 reportedly revealed that only around 55 per cent construction of one plot and 60 per cent of the other had been completed.

Opposing the complaint, the housing society argued that the complainants had no locus standi as they were not the original allottees of the plots and that transfer of the plots was not permitted. It also contended that the complaint, filed in 2010, was barred by limitation since the dispute related to the period between 2005 and 2006. The society further claimed that the plots had already been completed and occupation certificates obtained in 2005, with possession handed over to the original allottees. It denied receiving any construction payments from the complainants and sought dismissal of the case.

Also Watch:

The commission, however, rejected the contention that the complaint was time-barred, holding that incomplete construction constituted a continuing cause of action. It also ruled that the complainants were beneficiaries of the construction services and therefore entitled to maintain the complaint despite not being original allottees.

While dismissing the complaint against the housing society after finding no deficiency in service on its part, the commission concluded that the developer had falsely represented that the construction was complete and had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations. The commission relied on inspection reports placed on record which established that the construction work remained incomplete despite contrary claims by the developer.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/