Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed a developer to give possession of flat to a Mumbai resident in 45 days or refund Rs 27.44 lakh with nine percent interest per annum from July 2017 to date of realisation. The commission additionally directed Rs 75,000 compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.
Divecha had purchased a flat measuring around 581 sq ft. for herself from Xrbia in their project by the name 'Xrbia Smart City - Neral, Mumbai' envisaging various advantages of the project with modern amenities. She was promised of completion and handover of the project in an year's time of booking. The complainant being impressed with presentation of the flat paid Rs 2.57 lakh as booking amount as asked by Xrbia.
Possession stalled since 2017
While the price of the flat was Rs 26.91 lakhs including tax but excluding stamp duty, Divecha ended up paying more than 100 per cent of the amount over a period of time. She availed a housing loan of Rs 23.54 lakhs for the same from the financing partner of Xrbia that was sanctioned in February 2017 with 8.65 per cent interest per annum. Some of this amount was disbursed directly to Xrbia.
Divecha said that while the loan was to be given based on progress of work, it was given in one go because the company was hand in gloves. She repaid the enitre loan amount by September 2017 to avoid any financial liability. The original title deed was released by the bank after she cleared the loan, however, the possession of the flat did not come by.
It kept getting delayed and instead if getting it in a year's time, date of possession moved to November 2019 then to June 2020 and then January 2021 after which she stopped getting replies. Since she stayed in different accomodations during this perid, she sought cancellation and refund. Xrbia refused to cancel the booking stating they would instead compensate for the delay. Divecha said that Covid was just pretext to delay giving possession because the original date had long lapsed.
She sent reminders from time-to-time but there was no response. When legal notices were sent, they did not appear and an order was passed to move exparte. The Commission observed that the complainant had managed to prove her case and that it was clear that the possession was not provided and there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the developer.
