For claiming that a flat in Thane’s Shahapur sold to a buyer is 424 sf qt, but was actually 404 sq ft in carpet area, a Thane Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the developer to pay Rs. 56,000 to the customer.
The commission also asked the developers Phenomenal Industries Ltd. and Pashupati Developers to pay Rs. 50,000 to the buyer for causing mental agony, financial loss and harassment to the customer and Rs. 10,000 for other costs.
In addition, the Thane district commission's presiding member SZ Pawar and member Poonam V. Maharshi have directed the developers - partners in the project, whose offices are in Andheri and Borivali respectively, to reimburse around Rs. 15,000 that the customer spent for replacing the tiles of kitchen and bathroom and two doors, which broke within a year.
The partners also have to rectify the defects and deficiencies as cited by the customer in her complaint and issues of leakage the flat experiences during monsoon.
The buyer, a government employee, had believed the brochures and the sample flat that was shown and entered into an agreement and purchased the flat for Rs. 12.30 lakh in August 2011. Thereafter, the developers had asked her by May and then October of the following year to pay another Rs. 2.72 lakh to take possession of the flat, or the agreement would be held invalid, they said. They would not show her the finished flat saying that internal work was ongoing. The possession itself was delayed by 14 months, she said in her complaint. As per their promise, it should have been delivered by December 2011.
She had found several defects in the flat - leakage, poor quality materials used for tiling and finishing. She had spent around Rs. 18,000 for mending these, but the developers had agreed to pay her only Rs. 5,800.
Before the commission, the developers stated that the complaint had been filed with malafide intention to harass them and illegally extract some amount from them by way of compensation.
The commission said they had no reason to disbelieve the claims of the complainant which she had supported with documentary evidence, whereas the developers had made plain denial without any evidence to counter her allegations.
“The opposite party (developers) are under the obligation to comply their part as per agreement of sale…but they failed to keep their promise by providing defect-free flat with agreed amenities though the complainant made full payment to the opposite parties in time,” said the commission while declaring the developers deficient in service and having adopted unfair trade practice towards the complainant.
