Nagpur: The State Consumer Redressal Forum Nagpur, through its members has put M/s Hagwood Commercial Developers on notice on the complaint made by Avinash Eliezer.
The complainant has alleged that he was approached by the executives of the said builder company and the complainant was informed that the builder was proposing to construct a 15 storied building/residential apartment at Mouza Chinchbhavan in Nagpur under the name and banner of Prozone Palms. That since the complainant was looking out for a 3 BHK apartment for himself and another three BHK apartment for his family members, the complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase flats bearing number M 1501 and M 1502 located on the 15th floor of the said proposed premises.
According to the complainant Avinash Eliezer, it was informed that the building was duly sanctioned and that the said building would be handed over within nine months. As such, after negotiations the consideration was determined at about Rs 70 lakh per flat i.e. Rs 1. 40 crore for two flats. The complainant proceeded to obtain loan against the two flats of which he had entered into an agreement to purchase from the builder. The said agreement of sale was entered into on 07/02/2018.
The complainant further said that taking advantage of the unfortunate pandemic COVID-19, the builder had been dilly-dallying handing over the possession. However, the builder did not construct the building above the 9th floor and was insisting upon the complainant to take over another apartment on the ground floor of the said tower named Milano. Looking at the suspicious activities of the builder, when the complainant made enquiries, it transpired that the builder had not at all been accorded sanction by the competent authorities to construct more than nine floors and that since the said building was in the vicinity of the airport, the airport authorities did not give their permission to construct more than nine floors.
The builder had even agreed to pay rent against the accommodation for the alternate premises taken up by the complainant since there was a delay in constructing and handing over possession, which too came to be stopped by the builder in due course. It was pointed out that the builder had right from the very inception a fraudulent intention to cheat upon the complainant as he knew that he didn’t have any sanction to construct and sell any apartment above the 10th floor and he had with an intention to cause wrongful monitory gain for himself and wrongful monitory loss to the complainant, proceeded to lure the complainant to enter into an agreement to purchase the said flats.
Since there was deficiency in service and a fraud has been practiced by the builder upon the complainant, the complainant moved before the State Consumer Redressal Forum for refund, compensation and punishment against the builder and has also filed an application under Section 156(3) before the learned JMFC court for registration of FIR against the builder.
In response to the complaint filed by the complainant, A Z Khwaja, Presiding Member, Kalyani S Kapse, Shaila D Wandhare, members of the said forum, had raised a preliminary enquiry as to whether a person who has purchased 2 apartments would fall under the definition of being a consumer and could he be permitted to take recourse to the forum under the capacity of a consumer against his grievance for deficiency in service. Advocate Surabhi Naidu Godbole argued and satisfied the Forum by relying upon a catena of judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as by the National Consumer Redressal Forum, following which the complaint was admitted and the builder was put to notice.
Advocates Surabhi Naidu Godbole, Homesh Chauhan, Mitesh Bais, Tanisha Panwal appeared for the complainant.
