[ad_1]
Firm had gone incommunicado after collecting money for ‘underdeveloped’ plots
Firm had gone incommunicado after collecting money for ‘underdeveloped’ plots
A consumer commission directed a realty firm to pay ₹50,000 each to complainants in two different cases. It also ordered a refund of payments towards buying plots of land in Bhuvanagiri.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad, was dealing with complaints filed by Boorgula Eshwa Roopa and B. Ravi Kumar in one case, and Farzana Begum and Kanala Khaja Hussain in the other. The opposite party was Incredible India Private Limited.
In the case filed by Ms Roopa and Mr Kumar, they stated that a payment of ₹6,63,700 was made for a 150-square-yard plot and the opposite party demanded development charges. When the complainants visited the site, they found that it was “underdeveloped”. They stated that after making full payment, the opposite party stopped taking their calls and it was after three years that plot 838B was registered instead of 112/A.
In the second case, Ms Begum and Mr Hussain stated that they paid ₹6,63,200 for the 150-square-yard 837 B plot, but they too found it was “underdeveloped”. The opposite party had demanded more money and later, stopped taking calls.
For their part, the opposite party stated that in both cases, the complainants had requested that another plot be registered in their name, and ₹40,000 went towards registration charges. They also said that civil courts would be the appropriate forum to put forth their grievances.
After taking the arguments and evidence placed on record, the commission noted that the opposite party had stated that the development was in the completion stage. The Agreement of Sale stated that the layout would be developed as per norms and the Membership Application Form suggested that would entail black-topped roads, electrification, an underground sewage system, water pipeline and overhead tank, among other works. The commission remarked that the opposite party did not file any document related to the development of the layout. Both plots were neither marked nor developed.
The commission directed that the opposite party refund the payments — ₹6,63,700 in the first case, and ₹6,63,200 in the second case — apart from the ₹50,000 compensation. A cost of ₹10,000 towards litigation in each case were imposed.
[ad_2]
