Gujarat Plus - Gujarat on Web
Rediscover Gujrat .....Rediscover the Gujrati in You
CDRF takes up builder’s cause Wednesday, May 16, 2001
Ahmedabad, May 15: In a recently disposed off case, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Ahmedabad city passed an order against a consumer for dragging a builder concerned to the court without sufficient reasons.
The CDRF passed its judgment against one Lila Soni of Palanpur, who had filed an inappropriate complaint against Mangalmurti Consultancy and Raju Jirawala of Sabarmati, accusing them for failing to deliver services as per the contract.
The case filed in the court of CDRF president K.D. Desai, CDRF members Malay Kantharia and Leena Desai in December 1996 by Mrs Soni. She stated that she was not satisfied with the services offered by the opponents.
“The opponent organised and constructed flats namely Shankheshwar Apartment, at Kabir Chowk, Sabarmati. And as per the scheme, the complainant had purchased one flat – A/4 costing Rs 2,07,900. During the first payment, the complainant paid Rs 1,97,900 against the said price, while the remaining Rs 10,000 was to be paid at the time of executing the registered sale and handing over possession of the said flat within a year from the date of the contract,” the case states.
But, Mrs Soni claimed that she was not handed over the possession for next one and a half years, and the builder demanded Rs 10,000 more which increased the total amount payable to Rs 20,000, without which the respondent was unwilling to hand over the flat to n Turn to Page 11
“Meanwhile, the complainant verified that the construction of the said flat was not done as per the contract and that the materials used for the construction were also of poor quality – low quality wood was utilised for doors and windows.
Even the interior furnishing - the tiles used in the rooms - was not as per the contract,” the complainant reported adding that the respondents were not even ready to execute the changes demanded by her. Further, when the complainant asked for the necessary permission for construction of the said complex and the flat, she was turned down.
“Inspite of several demands, the respondent had refused to give such documents. And, when the complainant served a notice to the respondent asking him to complete the construction as per the contract, she was threatened that the flat will be sold to someone else. The hassles continued for the next one and a half years,” the complainant informed.
During the period, the complainant had to continue her stay at a rented house, which incurred loss of about Rs 36,000, and so, the complainant demanded the amount to be compensated. The complainant further made a demand of Rs 30,000 from the opponent for not furnishing the said flat as per the contract and for the additional charge of Rs 10,000 imposed on her by the opponent.
During the trial, the court found that the respondent was justified in charging Rs 10,000 extra which was the maintenance deposit and the extra work carried out by them upon request by the consumer. “That is why the possession was not handed over to the complainant,” the court observed.
The court therefore, ordered the complainant to deposit the unpaid sale price of Rs 10,000, and the maintenance deposit of Rs 10,000 with the court. The respondent was directed to issue legal document of the said flat on receiving the amount Rs 20,000. No relief was granted to the complainant regarding compensation of mental agony and financials loss of Rs 36,000 and Rs 30,000 as sought by the complainant.
News Source : The AsianAge Ahmedabad Edition [ The coolest Newspaper for city ]