Mumbai: Consumer court orders home developer to give Rs34L refund to buyer

Mumbai: Consumer court orders home developer to give Rs34L refund to buyer

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, has directed a developer to give an Andheri buyer Rs34.90 lakh that he paid for three flats which were sold to someone else.

Ashutosh M ShuklaUpdated: Thursday, January 12, 2023, 10:29 AM IST
article-image
Representative | Unsplash


Mumbai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, has directed a developer to give an Andheri buyer Rs34.90 lakh that he paid for three flats which were sold to someone else. The developer had stated that the buyer had bought them as an investment and there was an agreement between them to sell the same. If the amount is not given in 30 days, the developer will have to pay 6% interest per annum from mid 2014 to date of payment. Additionally, the developer is directed to pay Rs75,000 towards mental agony and litigation costs.


The order was passed on Dec 2 on a complaint by Andheri resident Shrinivas Padiyar against Poddar Heaven Homes Ltd. Padiyar had booked three flats with Poddar in 2011 but due to some problem he found in the flats, he asked that they be sold to some third party and a rate of Rs15 lakh per flat was agreed upon. Padiyar did not receive any response when he inquired about the same in 2020. However, he found out that in 2015 the flats were sold without his knowledge and so he sought money for the same with interest.

Poddar dismissed the allegations and stated that Padiyar is not a consumer as he has bought the flats for investment purpose and he, his family and staff had booked a total of 36 flats in their project at Karjat. It said that for that reason alone, it sought the complaint to be dismissed. Poddar also said that the complainant had sold some of the flats and the three he was asking compensation for, were the same for which the complainant had brought buyers.

During the hearing, the commission observed that only the opponent stated that there was an agreement of reselling between them but could not prove that flats were booked for the same. It then said that Padiyar was a consumer who had proved that he paid maintenance for the flats till 2015 and is entitled to get the money he had paid.

RECENT STORIES

Railways To Add 2 Sleeper Coaches To LTT–Secunderabad Duronto Express On Permanent Basis

Railways To Add 2 Sleeper Coaches To LTT–Secunderabad Duronto Express On Permanent Basis

Mumbai: 21-Year-Old Choreographer Arrested For Murder Of Sister's 40-Year-Old Partner In Malad

Mumbai: 21-Year-Old Choreographer Arrested For Murder Of Sister's 40-Year-Old Partner In Malad

Mumbai: RWITC Clubhouse At Mahalaxmi Racecourse Gets Coastal Authority Nod, BMC Pushes Ahead With...

Mumbai: RWITC Clubhouse At Mahalaxmi Racecourse Gets Coastal Authority Nod, BMC Pushes Ahead With...

Konkan Board Lottery: 96 LIG, EWS Houses Reserved For MLAs, MLCs Despite Higher Incomes

Konkan Board Lottery: 96 LIG, EWS Houses Reserved For MLAs, MLCs Despite Higher Incomes

Consumer Connect: 'Look At MahaRERA Portal For Homebuying Guidelines,' Says Expert

Consumer Connect: 'Look At MahaRERA Portal For Homebuying Guidelines,' Says Expert