Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (MHADB/Mhada). to give a lottery winner and occupant of a flat Rs 60,000 towards broken door and flooring within two months of the order else the same amount will have to be paid with eight percent interest per annum.
Additionally, it has asked MHADA to give Rs 45,000 towards mental harassment and litigation costs she faced as the flat won in a lottery was occupied by someone else when she went to take possession of it, its area less.
The order dated December 29 was passed by Preethi Chamikutty and Shraddha Jalnapurkar, members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban on a complaint by Mankhurd resident Azizabi Qureshi against Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA).
Complainant won flat, but no offer letter was issued
The complainant was looking for a residential house and made an application under the MHADA scheme for allotment of house in July 2006, she won a house under Rajiv Gandhi Prakalp and was allotted a flat measuring 291.83 sq. ft. in Mankhurd.
However, the director of the marketing department did not take any steps to issue an offer letter. She said that for four and half years, she was made to run from pillar to post and eventually got a provisional offer letter only in March 2021 directing her to pay Rs 5.30 lakh including penal interest of one percent over the flat's original cost of Rs 3.22 lakh. She paid the money for the same.
The complainant's flat was preoccupied, dilapidated
However, the possession was again delayed for a year and she had to complain to Lokayukta after which a possession letter dated April 2012 was issued to her. When she went to the flat, it was already occupied by another person. The light meter was also in his name due to malpractice by officials at MHADA.
The flat was in poor condition with bathroom door and flooring broken. The area of the flat differed from what was mentioned in the letter to what she got. As her name was not given to the society by MHADA, she could not even become its member. Ultimately at her own cost she had to get the flooring and door repaired.
During the hearing, the commission observed that the complainant provided proof of late provisional and allotment letter and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from MHADA for her to get the light meter bill transferred to her name. However, it said that she has not provided details of the actual expense of flooring.
Stating that MHADA had indeed shown deficiency in service and shown unfair trade practice, it directed that she be paid with compensation. For a reduced area, she was asked to file a new complaint.
(If you have a story in and around Mumbai, you have our ears, be a citizen journalist and send us your story here. )