State consumer body refuses to help ‘ignorant’ flat purchasers

Refusing to grant relief to, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rapped three “ignorant” flat purchasers for not getting the necessary information before making the payment.

Refusing to grant relief to, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rapped three “ignorant” flat purchasers for not getting the necessary information before making the payment.

HT Image

The three paid a total of Rs 53 lakh to a developer, Terrain Infrastructure Private Limited, for booking three flats at Vakola in Santacruz (East). They moved the consumer commission after the builder failed to give them possession.

“These complainants are well-educated and not illiterate persons and certainly they are well aware about provisions of law,” the bench of presiding member Dhanraj Khamatkar and member Narendra Kawde said.

“None of these complainants have produced the receipts issued to them by the opponents [developer] against the payments made,” the bench said. “Before parting with such huge amounts, the complainants should have insisted on receipts.”

Two of the complaints, Ghatkopar resident Karishma Lalwani and Byculla resident Dr Bhawarlal Jain had paid Rs 35 lakh and Rs 9 lakh respectively against total consideration of Rs 50 lakh for a flat each admeasuring 771 sqft in Terrain Heights at Vakola.

The third complainant, Lamington Road resident Sushil Jain, had paid initial amount of Rs 9 lakh out of total consideration of Rs 45 lakh for a flat admeasuring 661 sqft.

They moved the consumer commission last year alleging deficiency on part of the developer and sought direction to the developer to handover the flats and consequent compensation for the delay.

The consumer commission, however, found that two of them had booked flats on the 7th and 9th floors, which were illegal. The commencement certificate granted by the civic body was meant for construction up to sixth floor.

“It was their [complainants] duty to find out whether or not the opponents had requisite permission to construct a particular floor,” the commission said. “Instead of believing the verbal representation, the complainants should have asked for this information and the documents and only thereafter they should have parted with the money.”