Anamika real estate developer in Mumbai fined by NCDRC for delaying possession.

Apex consumer commission NCDRC has strongly imposed a fine of Rs 25 lakhs for unfair trade practices on a Mumbai-based real estate company and its Director for failure to hand over possession to two home buyers.

Anamika Real Estate Private Limited and its director Nitin N Mehta have been placed on “stern advice of caution” by a bench headed by presiding member S. M. Kantikar, keeping both responsible for disappointing acts.

The bench, also composed of Dinesh Singh, asked the company and its director to pay the Tanuja S Shetty complainant a sum of Rs 10 lakh out of the total cost.

The commissions stated clearly that the costs imposed are directly and only for the company’s “unfair trade practice” and the complainants were free to seek a remedy before a civil court.

“We specifically state that together with its director Nitin Mehta and the construction company are jointly and severally liable for the unfair trade practice. The liability started the day when the builder company and his director performed unfair and disappointing acts.” said the commission.

In May 1994, in the Benzer Tower project of the builder,  Shetty, together with another complainant booked two adjoining apartments. In 1996, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs 4 lakh for the allotment letter.

The complainants paid the total amount of both apartments by 2002, after which the builder concluded separate sales agreements for the two flats in Borivali, Mumbai.  

Later in the project, a cooperative housing society was formed for flat buyers, but the promoters of the project have revoked the rights of two complainants to become members of the project.

The complainants alleged that there was a conspiracy between opposite parties whereby their membership in the housing society would be illegal and forbidden to stop.

The two complainants were asked to take back the amount they paid, but they declined to do so, and they filed a complaint that the builder was guilty for failure in providing service and for unfair trade practice for not meeting a contractual and statutory obligation of the sale agreement.

In 2012, The State Consumer Commission of Maharashtra permitted the complaint that the company and Mehta had partly been holding on to service deficiencies.

The builder and its director are ordered to give the buyers property possession or pay them Rs 83.20 lakh compensation.

Source: Magicbricks