An article about " Builder to pay Rs. 25 Lakh for fleecing Couple "

Builder to pay Rs.25 Lakh for fleecing Couple

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a Builder to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to a Doctor Couple form Mahim, after they were charged an extra Rs. 12 lakh under the garb of penal interest.

The couple had booked two flats in the SRA building in 1997 but received their possession only in 2008. According to the panel, the interest or penal interest charged on account of defaults is absolutely unjustified and is an excess recovery made by the Builder without a reason. So, each complaint is entitled to claim amount back.

The Builder will have to return Rs. 6.92 lakh, along with 18% on it since 2007, to Mrs. Dr. Sangeeta and to Mr. Dr. Hemanth Pikale. The duo will also receive Rs1 lakh each for mental agony caused to them and Rs. 25,0000 each for costs of the complaint. The Builder will also have to give them the Occupation Certificates. In 1997, the Pikales bought the flats, each 344 sq.ft. in a building in Mahim that was to be developed and constructed by innovative Constructions Pvt. Each cost Rs. 21.37 lakh. Even though possession was to be handed over in three years, the Pikales received them on January 8, 2008. They alleged that just before handing over the flats, through a letter in December 2007, the Builder demanded more money. In January 2009, the complainants issued a notice through their Lawyer and demanded compensation for 5the delayed possession and to return with interest Rs. 6.02 lakh, illegally recovered as penal interest. As the Builder did not respond, the couple lodged two separate complaints in the commission in 2009. The Builder denied the allegations. The commission referred to the submission made by Mrs. Dr. Sangeeta, that whenever the Builder raised a demand, she found the construction was not of the desired stage and so, the demand made was premature. According to the Commission, Inspite of the checking out what the demand was, she went on making the payment, but not strictly within 5 days of the demand received, as the Builder could not justify his demand. The Builder cannot blame the complainant for delayedpayment and cannot invoke clauses in the agreement to charge any interest.