Home »  News »  India »  Mumbai

Mulund developers told to pay Rs 3 Lakh to flat buyer

Thursday, 15 May 2014 - 7:05am IST | Agency: dna

The Mumbai suburban district’s additional consumer forum recently directed Nirmal Developers of Mulund to refund an amount of Rs3,08,807 to a Chembur resident after the firm failed to pay back the entire booking amount to the complainant.

The forum asked the firm to refund the amount with 12 per cent interest from the date when the complainant had paid the booking amount. The forum also asked the firm to pay an additional Rs50,000 as fine along with Rs5,000 towards the complainant’s litigation charges.

In 2007, when CV Ramchandran had approached the firm he was informed that if he books a flat they would offer a suitable accommodation and hand it over to him by October that year.

The complainant had booked a flat worth Rs26 lakh in the firm’s Eden Gardens in Mulund and paid an amount of Rs3,08,807 as booking amount. “Complainant claimed that as per the terms and conditions of the firm, it had promised to hand over the agreement for sales once it received the booking amount. However, even after receiving the entire booking amount, it failed to execute the agreement,” reads the forum’s order copy.

The complainant also claimed that after a period of time, the firm informed him that since the construction site was declared forest land, the development was prohibited. “Ramchandran claimed that the firm had induced him to book their flat by concealing the fact that it was being developed on forest land. Hence, aggrieved by the firm’s behaviour, he approached the forum,” the forum’s order further read.

The firm, however, claimed that the said complaint was a false and frivolous one and not based on facts. The firm claimed that it had issued the complainant two cross cheques worth Rs2, 05,000 and Rs24,000 in August 2008, but the complainant refused to accept the same and had demanded the amount with eight per cent interest.

The forum, after going through the evidence, held that no doubt the firm had issued two cheques to the complainant, but it was not the entire booking amount, but a partial one. Thus, it penalised the firm for the same.

Jump to comments

Recommended Content