By IANS,
Ahmedabad : Gujarat’s Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld the verdict of a consumer forum and found a builder and developer guilty of not handing over possession of a bungalow to an Ahmedabad resident.
The commission dismissed the appeal of Milan Barot and S.K. Patel, builder and chairman of Nirmit bungalows, respectively, along with Mili Developers against the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum’s verdict. It asked them to hand over possession of the bungalow at Satyasai Co-operative Housing Society to plaintiff Mukesh Bhatt.
The forum, while deciding on the case filed by the Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS) here and Bhatt, had ordered the opposite party to hand over possession of the bungalow and building use (BU) permission obtained from the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) or the municipal corporation to Bhatt within three months from date of the order.
In case of non-compliance, they would be severally and jointly responsible to pay monthly damages of Rs.7,384 with 9 percent compound interest from the date of the complaint until handing over possession. The forum also ordered the opposite party to pay Bhatt Rs.10,000 for mental harassment and Rs.2,000 towards cost.
Bhatt had booked the bungalow at Satyasai Co-operative Housing Society and signed a contract with the builder under which he was to be handed over possession against payment of Rs.800,000. Bhatt took a loan of Rs.650,000 to be repaid in instalments of Rs.7,384.
Bhatt ended up paying the builder Rs 870,000 and an additional Rs.50,090. The total amount included Rs.20,000 for margin land and Rs.50,000 as legal, electricity installation, AUDA and other charges.
Bhatt additionally spent Rs.200,000 on furniture and fixtures in the bungalow and intended to shift as soon as he would receive the BU permission.
But the builder then demanded a total of Rs.952,750 from Bhatt. As the latter did not get the possession of the bungalow, he had to rent a house. Bhatt approached CERS and they jointly filed a complaint with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural), demanding the possession of the bungalow.
The commission observed that the letter of allotment given to Bhatt mentioned Rs.800,000 as the cost of the bungalow and did not refer to any additional construction done.
The commission agreed with Bhatt’s lawyer that provisions of the Flat Act makes the builder responsible for obtaining the BU permission and, as the opposite party could not prove the unpaid amount, the dispute could not be considered for the amount to be paid or unpaid.