In a complaint filed by Jagannath Hiray and Baby Hiray, who had booked a 3 BHK Flat at the 60th Floor of the proposed building named “LODHA DIORO” constructed by Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission granted relief to the complainant by directing the builder to pay Rs. 2.52 crores with interest @9% p.a.
Apart from the builder company, the NCDRC also held its present directors Ramandas pandey and Pranav Goel jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.
The complainant and the builder entered into a registered agreement on May 9, 2012. Later the builders informed the complainants that they can construct only 55 storied building because they failed to obtain required permission from Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).
The complainants in their complaint have mentioned that the builder accepted payments for the 60th floor despite being fully aware that no permission would be granted by the MMRDA and alleged that they misrepresented and suppressed the true facts in the agreement.
It was also claimed in the complaint that the developer Lodha neglected to inform the buyer about the reduction in number of floors and kept asking for balance payment of the supposed 60th floor. In loght of all these allegations the complainants have asked for refund of the deposited amount and damages.
The Builder in his favour said that the complainants were flat traders who booked the flat only for resellin. Since they availed the service for commercial purposes and the vouchers were issued in the name of Hiray enterprises Ltd., they cannot be regarded as “consumer” as per the definition given under Consumer Protection Act. But the Commission discarded this contention of the builder.
NCDRC noted that even a company can be regarded as “consumer” as per Supreme court precedents. For this the commission referred to SC judgment in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited (2009) 3 SCC 240 in which it was held that a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 is the “person” within the meaning of person as given in Section 2(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and partnership firm is exclusively covered under this section.
It has also been revealed that the builder offered to refund the deposit amount or a new flat in the same building but the complainants refused to accept the offer. Later it was also revealed that the builder did not have sanction to build beyond 45 floors due to height restrictions by Airport Authority of India (AAI).
The Commission has passed an order directing the builder to refund Rs 2,51,69,578 which includes stamp duty and registration expenses along with 9% interest p.a. within 45 days from the date of passing of order.
Courtesy/By: Sonali Tiwari
|
03 Mar 2019
