Realty company told to refund Rs 10.17 lakh to couple for failing to give flat

PUNE: An additional district consumer court here has directed Darode Jog Kulkarni Venture, a partnership realty firm, to refund Rs 10.17 lakh with 10% interest p.a. and pay Rs 55,000 compensation and cost to a couple from Bellary in Karnataka for failing to give possession of a flat in a project at Gorhe Budruk in Haveli taluka.
In a recent order, the bench of forum president M K Walchale and members S K Pacharne and S J Dunakhe gave 45 days to the firm to comply with its order, failing which the rate of interest, payable from September 22, 2015 i.e.the date of payment, will go up to 12% p.a.
Lawyer Rahul Gandhi, who represented the realty firm, told TOI, “Our client was expected to receive a certified copy of the consumer court’s order today. They will take a call on whether to go in for an appeal before a higher forum.”
The realty firm had argued that the consumer court had no jurisdiction over the matter as the complainants had demanded a refund of money and the same becomes a recovery suit to be decided by a civil court. The firm claimed that it was deficiency on the part of the complainants who did not pay the agreed amount on time. The complainants were aware of the fact that the project site was located in a suburban area and construction was likely to take more time than expected to complete, the firm argued.
However, the consumer court dismissed these arguments, pointing out that the complainants have established a service provider and consumer relationship by paying a sumptuous amount and the firm was bound by a registered agreement to hand over the possession by June 2017, inclusive of the six-month grace period. “In circumstances when there is no guarantee of completion of construction within near future, the complainants would naturally ask for a refund,” the bench said. The firm did not produce any documentary evidence in support of its claim that the complainants failed to pay the agreed amount on time despite repeated demand notices, the court observed.
The bench pointed out that despite acknowledging the fact that it accepted Rs 9.09 lakh from the complainants in part on September 22, 2015, the realty firm had mentioned in its written statement to the court that it did not deemed it fit to reply to the legal notice served by the complainants. Rather, the firm was using the money for its own benefit which amounted to unfair trade practice, the bench said.