New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Feb 26, 2020-Wednesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Home / Pune News / Pune builder fails to give flat; consumer forum orders 2 BHK or Rs 5 lakh compensation to victim

Pune builder fails to give flat; consumer forum orders 2 BHK or Rs 5 lakh compensation to victim

The forum has also directed the builder, identified as Kailas Narayan Kale of Kale and Associates, Sadashiv peth, to pay an additional amount of ₹50,000 to the complainant, Bharati Baban Shewale, by way of compensation towards mental and physical agony.

pune Updated: Aug 12, 2019 01:54 IST
Nadeem Inamdar
Nadeem Inamdar
Pune
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed a real estate developer to either deliver a vacant 2BHK flat admeasuring 800 sqft or refund an amount of ₹5 lakh with 20 per cent interest to the widow of the deceased who had booked an apartment by the developer in 2002.  (Photo by Sunil Ghosh / Hindustan Times)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed a real estate developer to either deliver a vacant 2BHK flat admeasuring 800 sqft or refund an amount of ₹5 lakh with 20 per cent interest to the widow of the deceased who had booked an apartment by the developer in 2002. (Photo by Sunil Ghosh / Hindustan Times)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed a real estate developer to either deliver a vacant 2BHK flat admeasuring 800 sqft or refund an amount of ₹5 lakh with 20 per cent interest to the widow of the deceased who had booked an apartment by the developer in 2002.

The forum has also directed the builder, identified as Kailas Narayan Kale of Kale and Associates, Sadashiv peth, to pay an additional amount of ₹50,000 to the complainant, Bharati Baban Shewale, by way of compensation towards mental and physical agony. The forum directed Kale to pay ₹15,000 as costs of complaint as well.

Bharati stated in her complaint that she belonged to a middle-class family and her husband decided to purchase a flat out of the funds derived from the pension benefits. They were in search of a suitable accommodation and came to know about Kale’s project in Sadashiv peth. Her husband approached Kale and they agreed to book the disputed flat.

Accordingly, her husband made a payment of ₹5 lakh, which is the sale consideration and a document to that effect was executed on October 22, 2002. The builder also issued a receipt and it was specifically agreed to deliver possession of the said flat within eight months. Thereafter, from time to time her husband visited the site, but the builder said there was no progress in the construction. On September 16, 2013, her husband passed away and despite the lapse of a period of fifteen years, the complainant did not get the possession of the disputed flat and she issued a notice to the builder on July 13, 2016 and demanded possession of the said flat. The builder replied to the notice on March 24, 2016, with false assurances, after which she lodged a police complaint at Perugate police chowki on May 20,2017 and filed a case with the consumer forum on June 22, 2017.

The forum proceeded ex parte against the builder and passed the order.

The consumer forum, comprising president Anil Khadse; Kshitija Kulkarni and Sangita Deshmukh, decided the case on August 8. The case was admitted before the forum on July 3, 2017. Advocate Anil Jalinder Satpute represented the complainant . 

Khadse in his order stated, “Bharati Shewale, the legal heir of the deceased Baban Gopinath Shewale, in her complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, had sought relief of possession of flat no 8 admeasuring 800 square feet in the area of 2 BHK on city survey no. 993-A/994-B specified on 5390 sq feet in Sadashiv peth. She also sought the relief of execution of the deed of conveyance. Alternately, if it is not possible to deliver the possession, then the complainant should be compensated as per the market price of the disputed flat. In addition, the complainant also sought recovery of rent to the tune of ₹50,000 per month from October 2003 onwards, compensation of ₹5 lakh towards mental agony and ₹25,000 as expenses of the litigation.”

============