The additional Thane district's consumer dispute redressal forum recently pulled up a Navi Mumbai-based developer after the firm had failed to hand over the possession of three flats, which the customers had booked between 2009 and 2011, thus holding the firm guilty of providing faulty services. The forum, thus asked the firm to either pay back the received booking amount with 15% interest from the time they had paid the money or to hand over the possession of their flat by accepting the remaining cost of their respective flats. The forum has also directed the firm to pay each Rs25,000 causing mental agony, along with an additional Rs10,000 towards their litigation cost.
The complainants, Neeta Rasal, Amit Sharma and Sudhakar Shinde, on August 6, 2012, had approached the forum and had filed a complainant against Navi Mumbai developing firm named Suraj Developers and its proprietor, Shirish Chavan, for accepting a certain sum of booking amount from them, and then failing to hand over the possession of the flats. The complainants had claimed that on December 16, 2011, they had received a call from the developer, saying that due to certain reasons he will not be able to hand over the possession and that it would return the booking amount to them. However as the developer, till August 2012, had failed to pay back the booked amount, hence the three approached the forum.
According to the forum's order copy, the cost of the flat booked by Rasal, Sharma and Shinde was Rs14,13,500; Rs12,90,000 and Rs12 lakhs respectively. "Of the total cost of the flats, Rasal had paid Rs3 lakh, Sharma had paid Rs6,40,000, and Chavan Rs9,85,000," reads the order.
The forum after going through the complaint, asked the developer to file its reply, however, the firm also failed to appear before the forum.
The forum hence after going through the evidence, held, " Chavan failed to take any step to hand over the possession of the said booked flats as per the agreement for sale and thus the said act thereby amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice," held the forum.