Thane based Builder ordered to pay Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for giving a Smaller Flat

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ordered a Thane based Builder M/S Animesh Enterprises to pay Mr. Mangesh. Ghadge. a total of Rs 7.5 Lakhs for causing a deficit of 150 sq. ft. area. Alternatively, the builder will have to provide 150sq ft. area to the Complainant.

On June 6, 1999, Ghadge and the builders entered into an agreement. The builder had agreed to sell the flat measuring 600 sq. ft. on the 3rd floor of the proposed building. The 222.4 sq. meter land at Lohar Lane, Thane, on which the construction was set to take place, belonged to Ghadge. The agreement also provided that the completed flat would be handed over on or before November 27, 2001.

Mr. Mangesh. Ghadge was to be sold the flat at a discounted and concessional rate as he owned the land. He had to pay the builder a total of Rs 6 Lakh. However there was a delay in execution of the project and he was instead given possession of a 450 sq. ft. flat in 2003. Mr. Mangesh. Ghadge then filed a Complaint before the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in year 2004 for deficiency in services.

In March 2010, the forum passed an order and directed the builder to allot the deficit space or pay the market rate of the space, along with compensation. Adv. R. P. Rathod. states that the builders M/S Animesh Enterprises then filed an appeal with the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission challenging the said Order passed by the Thane District Consumer Forum. Before the State Commission the builder alleged that there was delay in construction and completion of the project due to non-cooperation and misrepresentation on behalf of Ghadge. He further submitted that Ghadge had taken forceful possession of the said flat. The builder also contended that the area of the flat occupied is approximately 450sq ft. and has a balcony attached thereto.

While passing the said order The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that “It is clear that the builder had agreed to sell the flat admeasuring 600 sq. ft. against the services rendered for promotion and completion of the project undertaken by the Builder. But there is no documentary evidence to establish that respondent (Ghadge) had entered upon or taken over forceful possession of the said flat”. The Commission further held that the appeal was not tenable as there was a deficiency of 150sq ft.