Mumbai: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has directed Nirmal Lifestyles Ltd to refund three flat buyers Rs 81.42 lakh with 18% interest per annum from the date of payment of the booking amount to realisation of the money. The interest amount alone sums up to Rs 1.31 crore to date. Additionally, Rs 1.50 lakh compensation will have to be paid to each flat buyer towards mental agony and litigation cost.
The order dated October 21 in all cases (uploaded November 16, 2022) was passed by Justice SP Tavade (president) and ST Barne (judicial member) of SCRDC on complaints by Mumbai residents Pushkar and Gangadhar Khambe, Krishnan Venkiteswaran and the legal heir of Mrs Lalita Basavraj Kupsad (since deceased). The complaints were filed in 2015 against M/s Nirmal Lifestyles Ltd and its director Dharmesh Jain after they failed to get their respective flats and exact date of possession.
Incidents pertaining to 2012-2013
In different periods between 2012 and 2013, the three parties booked flats in a project – Nirmal Galaxy-Omega – of the opponent in Mulund. Through brochures, Nirmal had advertised various internal and external amenities such as elegant elevation, a grand entrance lobby, a jogging track, a fitness center, a clubhouse with indoor games, generator backup for lifts, a children's play area and multi-level podium parking, among others.
The complainants agreed to purchase flats measuring 666sq ft to 835sqft (built-up) ranging from Rs 73.06 lakh to 96.42 lakh. On being given a schedule of payment, the three complainants paid part consideration of Rs 28.81 lakh, Rs 14.61 and Rs 38 lakh in different periods in the years 2012 and 2013. While Nirmal acknowledged the payment, no agreement of sale was executed with any of the complainants. Nirmal failed to commence construction and even failed to inform them about the same.
When the complainants sought a meeting through emails no reply was given. They were even willing to pay the remaining consideration but no exact date of possession was given. Instead, the complainants were informed that they would need to transfer their booking to another project by Nirmal. They refused the offer due to a lack of faith and inconvenience and felt it was proposed with ulterior motives.
Nirmal, before the SCDRC, contended that they offered a transfer to a building close to Omega where another project of theirs was coming up and that the complaint is bogus. The commission observed that the agreement of sale was not done despite accepting the amount and construction did not start till the filing of the complaint. Citing a court order that stated: “The plea of 'force majeure' is nothing, but a ruse to make sure that the plea of delay raised by the OP stands accepted,” the SCDRC stated that the complainants cannot be forced to accept an offer given by the opponent and found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for not giving reasons pertaining to the project being stalled.
