Mumbai: Consumer Commission orders developer to hand over flat possession, along with compensation, to Canadian resident after 17 years | Representational Image
Mumbai: The Mumbai Suburban Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has reprimanded Chembur-based real estate firm M/s Eveready Builders, and its proprietor Haresh Chandan, for failing to hand over a flat booked by an Indian-origin Canadian resident in 2006.
The commission directed the developer to hand over peaceful possession of the flat to the complainant, along with the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the property within a period of two months.
Further the developer has also directed him to pay 9% interest on the deposited amount of Rs 23,71,000 from January 2009, the promised possession date, until the handover, to the complainant, since the money was invested in the project without receiving any returns. Additionally, the commission levied Rs 2 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and Rs 50,000 for litigation charges on the builder.
In its order, the commission stated: “The complainant is suffering at the hands of the developer as her huge amount is blocked, and till today, the opposite parties have not provided a definite timeline for completing the project and handing over possession. Hence, the developer is fully liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Based on this, we declare the developer guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the present case, and the complainant deserves remedies.”
Vijaya Mandani, an Indian-origin Canadian resident, had booked a flat in 2004 in Eveready Builders’ Navi Mumbai-based project, Shree Ananta Apartment, with possession promised within two years. Being based in Canada, Vijaya had given power of attorney to a Mumbai resident, Kirit S. Thakkar, to manage the flat on her behalf. An agreement was executed between the parties in 2006, and Vijaya was assured possession by December 2008.
Despite Vijaya paying the full agreement value of the flat and the construction being completed, the builder refused to hand over possession and stopped responding to her calls. Aggrieved by this, Vijaya, through her advocate Poonam Makhijani, filed a complaint with the commission.
The commission, after reviewing the evidence, asked the builder to respond. The builder, however, denied any deficiency in service.
The builder claimed that the transaction was a money-lending arrangement and that the flat purchase agreement was executed only as security. He argued that Vijaya was lending money through her power of attorney at substantial interest rates.
He stated: “The amount of Rs 23,71,000 paid to the builder was a loan at 12% per annum, with interest payable monthly. The sale agreement was executed solely to secure the principal amount, and no flat possession was required to be handed over to the complainant. Furthermore, as Vijaya is a Canadian citizen, she is a money lender under ‘The Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014,’ but does not have a money lender’s license.”
However, since the builder’s claims were unsupported by any evidence, the commission dismissed his arguments and held him guilty of adopting unfair trade practices. The commission ordered the builder to compensate the complainant accordingly.
