MUMBAI: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Lodha Developers and its other companies to refund a senior-citizen couple nearly ₹5 crore for unilaterally issuing a termination letter for an apartment booked at World Towers in Lower Parel.
The judgement, delivered on March 13 by Poonam Maharshi and Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan, states that Shreeniwas Cotton Mills, Lodha Developers, Jawala Real Estate and Macrotech Developers must “jointly and severally refund the amount of ₹2,83,59,554 with 10% interest from the termination of allotment, dated August 18, 2018, within two months from this order.”
They were also ordered to compensate Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee for stress, inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants.
The Chatterjees, retired senior citizens, had booked a 3 BHK of 2,015 sq ft in World Crest’s World Towers with two parking slots, in 2015, for ₹12,22,22,160. Possession was scheduled for December 2015.
The booking was made under the 20:80 payment scheme, where the latter portion was to be financed by the Chatterjees by selling their existing accommodation.
They were promised delivery by March 2016, but they decided to exit the project. The developer asked them to shift their booking to a 4 BHK with three garages in another project, ‘The Park’, in the vicinity, for ₹8 crore – possession would be given in June 2018. “The complainants did not receive any formal written proposal of the outcome of the meeting,” the petition noted.
{{/usCountry}}They were promised delivery by March 2016, but they decided to exit the project. The developer asked them to shift their booking to a 4 BHK with three garages in another project, ‘The Park’, in the vicinity, for ₹8 crore – possession would be given in June 2018. “The complainants did not receive any formal written proposal of the outcome of the meeting,” the petition noted.
{{/usCountry}}By then, they had paid ₹2.52 crore for the earlier apartment, which was transferred to the second, larger residence. In October 2016, the builder informed them that the flat’s price had been revised to ₹10 crore, requiring them to pay an additional ₹2 crore.
They once again decided to cancel the booking but were told that a 10% cancellation fee, amounting to ₹1.2 crore, would be levied.
After demonetisation was announced in November 2016 and real estate prices crashed, the Chatterjees received calls from the marketing department, offering similar flats at around ₹7-8 crore. However, the developer refused to extend the revised price to the senior citizens.
In the complaint filed with the commission, the complainants through their lawyer Dharmin Sampat claimed that despite paying ₹2,83,59,554, they received neither a refund nor possession, yet the builder terminated the booking.
Opposing the contention, the developer claimed the petition was a “gross abuse of process of law” and that they were justified in terminating the agreement and forfeiting 10% of the consideration amount. In their argument, the developer claimed the Chatterjees were unable to take a workable stand and failed to make payments as per the milestones. Moreover, they had bought the flat “purely for investment purposes”.
After hearing both sides, the commission decided that the developers’ actions constituted a deficiency in service. It also observed that the builder had “unilaterally” issued a termination letter and deducted a substantial portion of the amount paid solely on grounds of payment delay. Such a unilateral stance is not permissible under the law, it said.
The commission held that the developer had made a misleading representations regarding the failure to deliver possession of the flat within the stipulated timeframe, had committed a breach of trust, and was guilty of unfair trade practices, the judgment states.
Hence, the developer will have to not only refund the entire sum of ₹2.83 crore, but also pay the Chatterjees 10% interest starting August 2018, amounting to ₹2.12 crore.
A spokesperson for Lodha Developers said, “We are reviewing the order and will be challenging it. The facts in this case have been twisted to suit the needs of investors. We are confident of a favourable order on merits once challenged.”