Palghar: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has ordered a company to give seven more people flats booked by executing agreement after getting the balance payment else refund the amount to the buyers they had deposited for the flats along with 12 per cent interest within six months. FPJ in its September 20, 2022, issue had reported about SCDRC issuing a similar order against the same company M/s Crystal Homecon Pvt Ltd and others.
The commission has also asked that each of the buyers be given compensation of Rs 1 lakh for mental agony and if the compensation is not paid within 30 days, an interest of 12 per cent be paid on that amount, too besides paying litigation cost of Rs 25,000.
The orders were passed by Justice S P Tavade, president and S T Barne, member of the SCDRC on complaints from Oscar Jacob and Belrina Jacob, Dinkar Aswal, Kailash Bhol, Vishvas Gholap, Babita Chavan, Rajesh Mandahad, Mohammed Haque, all residents of Mumbai and the metropolitan region.
The seven buyers had booked flats in Virar Nagri, a project promoted by the company in village Kofrad, in Palghar district. Each had booked a flat on different floors in different buildings of the project with areas of the flats ranging from 325 sq ft to 490 sq ft. Each flat's total consideration ranged from Rs 15 to Rs 22 lakh. They had paid between Rs 2.64 and Rs 6 lakh as deposit money and were issued letters of allotment.
After some time when the buyers visited the site, they found that the company did not have proper rights and the name of some other company was put up on the site. A criminal complaint was filed by them against one of the directors at the Arnala Sagari police which was subsequently transferred to the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Palghar.
As per the Commission's order one of the directors had approached the sessions court for getting anticipatory bail but it was rejected. Thereafter, he approached the high court for the same and accepted the liability and agreed to clear the dues of all the buyers. However, despite assurance, the opponents failed to clear the dues of the complainant and also failed to handover the possession of the flats.
When a complaint was filed, the Commission issued a notice but it could not be served. Ultimately, opponents were served notice by publishing a notice in newspaper. As no one appeared and contested for opponents, by passing an order in September 2021, the Commission decided to proceed ex-parte and gave the final orders.
