New Delhi: The National Consumer Redressal Commission New Delhi comprising of Shri Anup Thakur, {presiding member} has issued notices to Chief Officer, MHADA, and its Contractor M/s IVRCL Infrastructure and Project Ltd. on a “consumer complaint” jointly filed by flat buyers u/s 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, namely Mahesh Jain, Satish Sarada, Nitin Sarada, Aaarti Kimmatkar, Anuj Chopde, Ramesh Modi, Bulakhidas Kalantri, Gokuldas Paphat, Amrut Damle, Amar Damle, Anand Gupta, Sunil Maheshwari, Vaibhav Wargantiwar and Mitali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd on behalf of all consumers and directed respondents to file the reply in three months.
The consumers/flat buyers have contended that they have all respectively paid Rs.45/ Lakhs in buying their flat from MHADA, in its prestigious MHADA-CITY PROJECT at Subhash Road, Nagpur. The possession of which was promised by MHADA on 15-12-2012. The petitioners have alleged that MHADA has pocketed Rs.128/ crores from 320 prospective buyers in MHADA-CITY at Subhash Road, Nagpur and in spite of accepting full payment, MHADA has failed to give the possession even till today.
The petitioners stated that four extensions were illegally given to contractor M/S IVRCL LTD. up to 30-06-2013, 31-12-2013, 30-04-2014, 31-11-2014 for completion of the project but the builder has failed to complete the project even till today. It is also contended that MHADA has failed to procure statutory permission like, Building Completion Certificate, Occupancy Certificate, Environmental Clearance, Fire NOC etc and has also failed to complete the construction.
MHADA has also not made available promised facilities like Podium Garden, Fire Fighting System, Swimming Pool, Club House, Solar Panel, Sewage Treatment Plant etc and thus committed “unfair trade practice” and “deficiency in service.”
The petitioners have demanded an amount of Rs.37/ Lakhs each as compensation @ 16% per annum from the each date of payment along with directions to give “valid possession”, “sale-deed” and statutory certificates. The petitioners contended that MHADA has failed in this project due to “unexplained delay” on the part of contractor and lethargic approach of its officials. It may be noted that hundreds of flat buyers in this scheme are aggrieved by the unfair conduct of MHADA and have finally approached NCDRC NEW DELHI after exhausting all options.
The petitioners have prayed for the relief to all members of Mitali Co-operative Society Nagpur in its representative capacity u/s 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and sought possession and compensation for all the flat buyers.
Adv. Tushar Mandlekar argued for the petitioners before the NCDRC NEW DELHI.
