Mumbai: The state consumer commission has directed a senior citizen trust, also called Senior Citizen Trust, to hand over peaceful possession of a cottage to a 75-year-old man or refund the cost paid with 12% interest till the time of realisation of the amount. The commission also directed ₹1.25 lakh as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.
The order was passed on a complaint by Vijaykumar Deshpande against the trust and Ganpat Jadhav, its chairman and managing trustee. A Dombivli resident, Deshpande was introduced to the ‘Senior Citizens Village’ in Raigad by the trust.
Here is what led Deshpande to file a complaint:
The scheme was to be specifically for senior citizens with cottages measuring 500-750 sqft on land owned by Jadhav. After being impressed by the advertisement, Deshpande booked cottage number 37 for which he paid ₹1 lakh that was acknowledged. However, he did not receive any communication after that. When Deshpande contacted Jadhav, he was told that the cottage can be completed within 12 months if he paid ₹16.50 lakh. He paid the entire amount and an agreement was registered for the same.
However, no cottage came by and the excuse given was that there were labour problems and hence construction could not start. Deshpande then filed a complaint with the commission, where Jadhav contended that construction could not take place because some person adjacent to the place had lodged an objection to the project with the collector office. Jadhav also said that the charity commission had removed him as trustee and appointed an arbitrator for management of affairs.
"Unfair trade practice," says commission
The state commission said that the contentions cannot be accepted as Deshpande was a consumer and the opponents service providers. It added that the trust had floated a scheme on land belonging to Jadhav so he cannot claim ignorance and that there was no privity of contract between him and the complainant because the contract was between the trust and Deshpande.
Stating that the trust and Jadhav should have fulfilled the terms of handover and not doing so was deficiency in service and indulging in unfair trade practice, it directed its order be complied within six months.
