Mumbai: Twenty years after a family from Churchgate was to receive a 441 sqft flat in Thane in lieu of legal services rendered by their now deceased lawyer father, the national consumer commission has ordered the builder to hand over possession of a flat with a compensation of Rs 10 lakh for delayed possession.
The commission refuted the builder’s claim that since the lawyer had not paid any money, there was no service provider and consumer relationship.“The opposite parties are bound by the agreement and now at this stage, they cannot back out from the agreement by stating that the complainant has not paid any consideration… agreement is very specific about the consideration. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to hand over the flat as per agreement to the complainant,” the commission said.
The commission further said that the agreement also makes it clear that there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties. “The preliminary objection of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer is rejected,” the commission said.
While the builder sold the flat to another buyer, the commission directed them to hand over a similar flat in the same area. “It is admitted case of the parties that the flat is not available as builder has sold the flat…In these circumstances, the opposite parties are liable to hand over an identical flat of the same dimension in the same locality,” the commission said.
Madhavi Karandikar had moved the commission against Ms Vinita Builders in 2012. During pendency, she died and her legal heirs represented the family.
The complainants submitted that Prabhakar Hegde, an advocate, extended his services to the builder. In consideration of his services for about eight years in acquiring the project land, the builder agreed to sell and transfer a flat worth Rs 8.65 lakh in his name. After his death, the builder agreed to transfer the flat in the name of the complainant and her mother. An agreement was executed between the builder and complainant. As per agreement, possession was to be given by September 2003 failing which the builder would pay compensation for delay. However, they submitted that instead of giving possession, the builder illegally inducted another buyer into the flat.
We also published the following articles recently
The commission refuted the builder’s claim that since the lawyer had not paid any money, there was no service provider and consumer relationship.“The opposite parties are bound by the agreement and now at this stage, they cannot back out from the agreement by stating that the complainant has not paid any consideration… agreement is very specific about the consideration. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to hand over the flat as per agreement to the complainant,” the commission said.
The commission further said that the agreement also makes it clear that there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties. “The preliminary objection of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer is rejected,” the commission said.
While the builder sold the flat to another buyer, the commission directed them to hand over a similar flat in the same area. “It is admitted case of the parties that the flat is not available as builder has sold the flat…In these circumstances, the opposite parties are liable to hand over an identical flat of the same dimension in the same locality,” the commission said.
Madhavi Karandikar had moved the commission against Ms Vinita Builders in 2012. During pendency, she died and her legal heirs represented the family.
The complainants submitted that Prabhakar Hegde, an advocate, extended his services to the builder. In consideration of his services for about eight years in acquiring the project land, the builder agreed to sell and transfer a flat worth Rs 8.65 lakh in his name. After his death, the builder agreed to transfer the flat in the name of the complainant and her mother. An agreement was executed between the builder and complainant. As per agreement, possession was to be given by September 2003 failing which the builder would pay compensation for delay. However, they submitted that instead of giving possession, the builder illegally inducted another buyer into the flat.
We also published the following articles recently
Taxpayers are nation builders: IT Principal DG Archana
Archana Chowdary, Principal Director General of the Income Tax Department, Delhi, inaugurated the Tax Payers Hub (TPH) at GVMC Aqua Sports Complex in Visakhapatnam. The TPH aims to clear doubts and create awareness among taxpayers. The IT department is organizing TPHs in seven cities across the nation, including Vizag. The event also featured a street play, quiz, magic show, sports, and painting competitions to create awareness of Income Tax and related services.
Archana Chowdary, Principal Director General of the Income Tax Department, Delhi, inaugurated the Tax Payers Hub (TPH) at GVMC Aqua Sports Complex in Visakhapatnam. The TPH aims to clear doubts and create awareness among taxpayers. The IT department is organizing TPHs in seven cities across the nation, including Vizag. The event also featured a street play, quiz, magic show, sports, and painting competitions to create awareness of Income Tax and related services.
Builder remanded to ED custody till January 12
A special PMLA court remanded builder Vijay Machinder to ED custody till January 12. The court stated that witness statements indicate how Machinder generated proceeds of crime by collecting money and taking loans for a project where no construction took place. The ED’s case is based on a complaint by an investor accusing the company of selling flats to others. Machinder had proposed a building project for UTI employees, obtained funds from banks, and sold area to purchasers. He allegedly sought help from the Dawood gang and promised money to Chhota Shakeel for his projects.
A special PMLA court remanded builder Vijay Machinder to ED custody till January 12. The court stated that witness statements indicate how Machinder generated proceeds of crime by collecting money and taking loans for a project where no construction took place. The ED’s case is based on a complaint by an investor accusing the company of selling flats to others. Machinder had proposed a building project for UTI employees, obtained funds from banks, and sold area to purchasers. He allegedly sought help from the Dawood gang and promised money to Chhota Shakeel for his projects.