Purchaser of flat is consumer ?
Amishi
(Querist) 10 October 2012
This query is : Resolved
Sirs,
I have booked one underconstructed flat before 3 years ago. The builder is not completing construction yet.
The builder is also refused to refund money with interest.
So, i wish to file case against builder in the consumer forum to refund my money with interest.
Am i consumer under the consumer protection act?
If yes, please provide case regarding for abovementioned issue.
Thanks in advcance.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 October 2012
yes you are consumer under consumer protection act . you dont need case law for this issue .
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 11 October 2012
Yes ,you are a consumer of builder and builder has not completed the constructions within time as per agreement so there is deficiency of services on part of builder.File a complaint against builder in consumer forum.
Amishi
(Querist) 11 October 2012
I already file case at the consumer forum. But Judge ask case law that i am consumer or not?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 11 October 2012
Erring builders told to cough up Rs 29L to bank
, TNN | Oct 8, 2012, 02.17AM IST
MUMBAI: In three separate judgments, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ordered two builders to pay a total of Rs 29 lakh to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd after they failed to hand over flats to three city residents who had booked them in 2003. The builders had filed an appeal seeking to pay the money directly to the bank so that the flats would be returned in their custody.
Both Bhikaji Gurav and Siddharth Kasare had booked flats in M/s Astavinayak Associates project at Thane in 2003. However, at the time of handing over the flats the builder demanded more money than agreed upon. A similar situation occurred with Sunil Kirloskar who had booked a flat in the same year in Thane-based builder, Mangalmurti Constructions' project. Gurav, Kasare and Kirloskar field three separate complaints in the Thane forum. In 2009, the forum while directing the builders to pay a compensation of Rs 35,000 each also ordered them to refund around Rs 3.15 lakh paid by each one of them.
The builders filed appeals in the state commission. The builders submitted they were willing to comply with the order. However, they prayed that since the trio had taken housing loans from the bank, it had charge of the flats and hence, the money should be directly paid to the bank. According to the bank statements as on August 2012, Astavinayak Associates owed the bank Rs 9.97 lakh towards Gurav's flat and Rs 9.89 lakh towards Kasare's flat. Mangalmurti Constructions had to pay a total of Rs 9.31 lakh.
Accepting the builders' pleas to modify the order, the commission said, "If such moulding is not carried out then on recovery of those amounts from the builder, if the complainant fails to pay it towards the outstanding dues of the financial institution, the interest of the builder would be affected since the flat in question would continue to remain under the charge credited for the house loan."
ajay sethi
(Expert) 11 October 2012
In its landmark judgment in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs MK Gupta (CA No 6237 of 1990 decided on 5-11-1993), the Supreme court made it clear that “When possession of property is not delivered within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is denial of service” and a consumer who is a victim of such delay is entitled to compensation.
It also made it clear in this judgment that the compensation awarded by the consumer courts in such cases should serve the dual purpose of recompensing the individual while simultaneously bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of manufacturers and service providers towards consumers.
