The State Commission has directed a builder to refund Rs22 lakh with 12% interest and Rs3.5 lakh compensation. The Commission ruled that there was a breach of “agreement for option” by the developers. The developers while booking the flat had kept an irrevocable option of buying a flat with lock-in period, schedule and terms of payment. The flat was to be given in three years and if not possible then in a new project. However, neither the project took off, nor was the refund given.
Navi Mumbai resident filed complaint against Andheri company
The order dated March 27, uploaded recently was passed by Justice S P Tavade, president and S T Barne, judicial member State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). It was passed on a complaint by Navi Mumbai resident, Harish Naik against Andheri-based M/s Nirman Realtors Limited and its directors.
In 2012, the complainant came across 'Landmark', a project of opponents in Jogeshwari. Naik met the sales team and was told that he will get possession of the flat in mid of 2016 and the approval will come in some time. The complainant invested his savings and booked a flat in December 2012 with a total consideration of Rs78.75 lakh. He paid Rs10,000 at the time of booking.
Opponents forced to sign undated agreement with 'option'
However, the opponent did not give an allotment letter. When he insisted, opponents forced him to sign an undated agreement with “option”. After follow-ups, an allotment letter was issued in August 2013 but the construction did not start. When the construction failed to start after a reasonable period, he sought a refund and filed a complaint.
The opposite parties contended that the complainant executed “agreement for option” which showed that he was an investor who invested at the pre-launch stage anticipating reasonable returns in future upon resale. It added that the “option holder” was granted an “irrevocable option to purchase one flat” and that the agreement mentioned a three-year lock-in period and only after its completion, the refund would be given. The other option was to buy the place and that the option to sell was not there. The court, said the opponent, cannot rewrite the agreement between parties.
Admitted fact that opponents didn't start construction: Commission
The Commission said that it is admitted fact that the opponents did not start construction of the building. It added that the complainant had paid money as per the schedule drawn and had he been an investor, he would have made a lump sum payment. The Commission further contended that the payment pattern showed that it was for his personal use and records showed that till 2015, the opponents could not start the work, which should have resulted in refunding the amount on their own.
The Commission said that there is no proof of opposite parties informing the buyer of the project not working out or giving an option of a flat in the new project.
