A consumer forum here has directed a builder and a property dealer, who failed to deliver a floor in their project to a man, to return him over Rs seven lakh, besides giving compensation of Rs 50,000.
East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by N A Zaidi, asked Jaipur-based Narayan Builders and Developers and Delhi-based S M Properties to pay Rs 7,90,196 to Delhi resident Girish Ahuja saying that the builder had not followed the terms and conditions of the agreement.
"The act of Opposite Party (builder) is wholly illegal. They have used the money deposited by the complainant for a considerable long period. They have not followed the terms and conditions of the agreement which they have entered with the complainant.
Also Read
"The project was not started in the period as given in the Flat Buyers Agreement. In these circumstances, this is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party (OP)," the forum said.
It also raised objection to the builder's contention that complainant was informed regarding taking of the project by another firm and a supplement 'Flat Buyer Agreement' was sent to Ahuja but he never returned it.
"The simple question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the Opposite Party (building company) can force complainant to enter into an agreement with a new entity which was nowhere in picture when he booked the flat in question on the assurance and terms and conditions of 'Narayan Infinity'.
"All the payment made by complainant has been admitted by the Opposite Party (OP)," the forum said.
"We direct the OPs (Narayan Builders and Developers and S M Properties) jointly and severally to refund to complainant total amount of Rs 7,40,196... We, further, award compensation of Rs 50,000 to the complainant on account of harassment, mental pain and agony which shall also include cost of litigation," it said.
Ahuja had told the forum that he had booked a floor with the builder and paid Rs 7,40,196 in some instalments.
However, the builder kept on delaying construction for one reason or the other and later informed him that the project was taken over by some other firm, he said.
Aggrieved by this, he approached the forum seeking refund of the paid amount apart from a compensation of Rs two lakh.
The buider, however, denied the claim and contended before the forum that Ahuja had not adhered to the terms and conditions of the agreement, nor he had adhere to the schedule of the payment and, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
