E-Paper
Consumer forum rules builder to pay Rs 4.75 lakh for deficiency of service
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on September 5, 2018 by Vivek Binwal, a resident of Ghaziabad
PUNE The Pune District Consumer Redressal Forum has directed a builder to pay Rs 4.75 lakh, with 12 per cent interest as compensation, to a consumer on account of deficiency of service.
The consumer forum, in its judgement released on February 1, stated, “It appears from the record that the complainant repeatedly asked the builders to register the agreement in his favour regarding the flat, but they did not pay heed to him and thereby violated the mandatory provisions of the MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (MOFA) Act). Thus it is crystal clear that the builders have not complied with provisions of MOFA. What are the reasons, for not registering the agreement, those have not been brought on record by the builders and this itself amounts to the deficiency in service and indulgence of the builders in unfair trade practice.”
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on September 5, 2018 by Vivek Binwal, a resident of Ghaziabad.
The complaint was related to non execution of the registered agreement. The forum held that by avoiding the legal provisions for registration of agreement, the builders have caused deficiency in service.
The builders despite not having the Non Agriculture (NA) permission in 2012; advertised the project and had taken the booking amount from the complainant.
Binwal complained that he booked a flat in the scheme floated by the builders and paid a consideration of Rs 18.50 lakh for which the notarised booking agreement was executed by the builders.
According to the complainant, when construction of the project failed to the begin, the builders called for a meeting and requested all the buyers to give some more time for completion of the project. Some of the buyers claimed back their booking amount from the builders. The builder issued cheques to some of the buyers who requested their money back but they bounced due to insufficient funds.
According to the complainant, the builders indulged in unfair trade practice and there was deficiency in service by them. The builders also violated provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (MOFA) Act. The complainant further said that though time was given to the builders, they did not initiate construction of the project and the likelihood of getting possession fogged down.
The forum serviced a notice to the builders seeking them to remain present before them but they remained absent and the matter proceeded ex—parte against them by passing an order to the effect.
