Housing society fined 22.5 lakh for delaying possession of flats
For ‘delayed and defective’ possession of flats without basic amenities, district consumer disputes redressal forum, SAS Nagar, directed a housing society to pay Rs 2.25 lakh each as compensation to 10 residents harassed at the hand of the society.
Providing relief to 10 persons who had invested in the housing project floated by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation (CGEWHO) in 2006, and still awaiting ‘effective’ possession of the flats, the consumer forum has held the housing society deficient in services. The housing society will also pay Rs. 22,000 each of 10 residents as litigation cost.
In February, the forum had allowed about 36 complaints and granted similar relief to the allottees. Om Narain Bhargava of Panchkula, and nine others filed separate complaints against the CGEWHO, alleging wrongful demand of final installment and delay in development.
Read more @ http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/housing-society-fined-22-5-lakh-for-delaying-possession-of-flats/article1-1241880.aspx
Real estate firm asked to pay Rs 25L for harassing buyer
Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd has been asked by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 25 lakh to a man for harassing him by keeping him in the dark about matters related to a flat and demanding illegal considerations from him.
The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the builder to pay Rs 25 lakh to Gurgaon resident Vijay Misra and asked it to issue him a fresh statement of dues and handover fresh possession letter of the flat, as per old agreed rates.
Read more @ http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/real-estate-firm-asked-to-pay-rs-25l-for-harassing-buyer-114071800549_1.html
Consumer Forum gives relief to DLF property buyer in Gurgaon
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, said that several other complaints were filed by buyers against the real estate developer, DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Pvt Ltd, related to the same project, ‘New Town Heights’, in which the forum had held the builder guilty of unfair trade practice was reported by times of India.
As per forum information, a resident of Delhi, Vibha Puri booked a flat in Gurgaon based New Town Heights Project in 2008. She had paid Rs. 5 Lakh to the company for buying a flat. After sometime she felt that there was no progress in the work of the project. During that time, the developer asked 35 per cent of total cost of the flat too. When Puri asked about the project, the developer deferred her by saying that the project was stayed due to not getting environment clearance.
Read more at: http://www.merinews.com/article/consumer-forum-gives-relief-to-dlf-property-buyer-in-gurgaon/15899317.shtml&cp
Nalasopara builder told to pay man for failing to give flat
The Thane district consumer forum on Monday penalised a Nalasopara-based developer for failing to hand over possession of a flat, as promised, which the complainant had booked in 2011. The forum directed the construction firm to repay the booking amount of Rs1.61 lakh with nine per cent interest from June 2011, and also asked it to pay Rs50,000 towards the complainant’s litigation cost.
As per the forum’s order copy, Ghanshyam Chauhar, a Santa Cruz resident, booked a 500 sqft flat worth Rs7.5 lakh in Naleshwar Gharkul owned by developer Mahesh Naik in Nalasopara. In March 2011, Chauhar paid Rs1 lakh, and, in May 2011, another Rs50,000. A few months later, he paid Rs1.5 lakh more to the developer. The developer, however, allegedly refused to start any construction work.’s possession
Read more @ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-nalasopara-builder-told-to-pay-man-for-failing-to-give-flat-s-possession-2002150
Unfair trade practice: Parsvnath Developers to pay over Rs 13L
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum asked Parsvnath Developers to pay Rs 13,10,615 to Telexcell Information Systems Ltd and said it was a case of deficiency and unfair trade practices.
The firm had filed the complaint, saying that it had booked a flat with the construction company in October 2007, but even after three years it failed to construct the project.
The forum noted that the construction company took a plea that due to phenomenon of global recession, which affected the entire world, specially real estate seekers in India, it could not complete the project in time.
Read more @ http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/unfair-trade-practice-parsvnath-developers-to-pay-over-rs-13l-114071500550_1.html
NCDRC dismisses appeal filed after more than 11 years
The apex consumer commission has dismissed an appeal of Kanpur Development Authority against a district consumer forum order on the ground that it was filed more than 11 years after it was passed.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench declined to entertain Kanpur Development Authority’s appeal, filed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, which had also rejected the plea for condonation of delay.
The authority had approached the state commission against an order passed by the district consumer forum after the delay of 11 years, four months and 28 days.
The NCDRC bench, presided by Justice K S Chaudhari, said, “State Commission, after considering all the aspects and referring many judgements of apex court, dismissed application for condonation of delay of 11 years 4 months and 28 days. In the application itself we do not find any explanation at all on condonation of delay of more than 11 years.”
Read more @ http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ncdrc-dismisses-appeal-filed-after-more-than-11-years-114071600917_1.html
Foreclosure charge on loan unfair practice, says consumer forum
A consumer forum here has held that collection of foreclosure charges from housing loan borrowers amounts not only to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.
The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum headed by its president, A. Rajesh, made the ruling while directing Federal Bank to refund the foreclosure charges collected from Biju Joseph of Kakkanad, a borrower.
The forum said the Committee on Customer Service in Banks had opined that foreclosure charge levied by banks on prepayment of home loans was seen as a restrictive practice, deterring borrowers from switching over to cheaper available source. The committee was of the view that levying of foreclosure charges amounted to restrictive practice on the part of banks. The Reserve Bank, through a circular in 2012, had asked banks not to charge foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties on home loans on floating interest rate basis with immediate effect.
Read more @ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/foreclosure-charge-on-loan-unfair-practice-says-consumer-forum/article6208924.ece
Pay Rs 2 lakh for service deficiency: Forum
The Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum has ordered Lodha Developers to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to a man after the former failed to return the advance amount of Rs 45,000 paid by the latter while booking a flat, which was cancelled later.
Ordering the compensation to Mulund resident Santosh Patil, who had booked a flat in Casa Rio Complex of Lodha Developers, forum president Umesh Jhavalikar and its member N D Kadam said the builder was deficient in providing service. Patil had booked the flat on August 14, 2011 and made a payment of Rs 45,000. However, he cancelled the booking on August 24, 2011 due to ill health and domestic reasons and sought refund of the amount by sending an e-mail to the builder.
Patil, in his complaint, said that the builder refused to refund the advance of Rs 45,000 by taking recourse to the conditions as interpreted by the builder. He then approached the forum seeking compensation of Rs 4.97 lakh, including the advance payment made by him.
Read more @ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Pay-Rs-2-lakh-for-service-deficiency-Forum/articleshow/38221897.cms
Recent Consumer Forum / Court Judgments in Real Estate against Builders
Housing society fined 22.5 lakh for delaying possession of flats