The case came to the state forum after the realty firm challenged a district forum order in the case
The state consumer forum has directed a realty company to accept the remaining payment for a house from a customer and ensure that documentation for the same is done after the payment is made. The case came to the state forum after the realty firm challenged a district forum order in the case.
One Kalpesh Shah had entered into an agreement to buy a flat in Swapan Residency on 28/7/2010 in Vadodara. He also paid Rs 8 lakh as initially installment. On april 4, 2010 an allotment letter was given to Shah and on July 15 and agreement was also entered into with the builder.
Shah moved the district forums after the builder did not give him possession even after six months of entering into the agreement and instead demanded an additional Rs 5 lakh from him. The district forum ruled in favour of Shah following which the builders approached the state forum. Shah's counsel argued that he had so far paid Rs8.55 lakh in cheque, Rs 7 lakh cash and Rs6.25 lakh from loan through HDFC bank, thus paying Rs21.80 lakh of the total cost of Rs 22.80 lakh.
The company argued that apart from the Rs22.80 lakh of the cost of the property, Shah owned them Rs50,000 by way of development charges, Rs25,000 by way of maintenance thus the total cost of the house came out Rs23.55 lakh. The company claimed that Shah was yet to pay it Rs10.29 lakh as he had also demanded some additional work in the flat. The company said it was well within its right not to give possession until the full payment was made. The state forum in its verdict said that the customer had shown the paper trail of the payment he had made. This also included a paper trail of the Rs7 lakh he had paid by way of cash, as he had taken a loan from his provident fund and he had also shown account statement of his bank to show he had withdrawn the amount through a self-cheque.
Further, the court also relied on the tax bill that was being generated in the name of the customer for the flat in question. The forum stated that had the money for his house not been paid there was no way the builder could have given the go-ahead for the municipal tax to be issued in the name of the customer.
As to the claim that the customer and demanded extra work and was ye to pay for it, the forum stated that the company could not provide any letters that could prove that it had time and again demanded money for the extra work.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "State consumer forum")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}