The MahaRERA has directed the developer of a project in Worli to pay a compensation of Rs 15 lakh — Rs 14 lakh for “loss of opportunity and loss of comfort for lifelong users” and Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony to a couple.
The couple had booked a 3BHK flat measuring 1,600 sq ft for Rs 2.72 crore through an agent in the developer’s project in 2011 and was promised possession in 2013. They had paid the developer Rs 1.74 crore.
However, the developer failed to allot the flats or enter into an agreement of sale and amended the sanctioned plans without consent and changed it to 2 BHK flats measuring 900 sq ft.
The developer has also been directed to refund the money with interest to the couple for shortfall in area admeasuring 700 sq ft and also allot a flat between 26th and 35th floor to them.
MahaRERA member Vijay Satbir Singh directed the developer to pay off interest for the delayed period of possession from 2017. Subsequently, adjudicating Officer AL Alaspurkar in his order has stated that the complainants had paid the consideration and were expecting a bigger flat than which was required to be accepted by them. Therefore, it was a clear case of loss of opportunity to use a bigger flat.
According to the complainants, in 2011, they booked the 3BHK flat at Rs 16,375 per square feet, with estate agent Trikal Theaters and Reality on behalf of the developer of the Cornerstone (formerly known as Neumec Interlude) project in Worli.
The complainants claimed they paid a sum of Rs 1.74 crore between 2011 and 2015 and the developer issued an allotment letter in December 2015 without mentioning specific flat numbers and floor numbers. The developer threatened to cancel the booking of the flat, as the complainants insisted on mentioning the floor and flat numbers. Later in 2017, the developer allowed a rebate for early payment and discounted the cost by Rs 10 lakhs.
Subsequently, in October 2018, the complainants were informed that the sanctioned plan was being modified. However, the complainants claimed that they had not given their consent for amending the sanctioned plan. A conciliation attempt, between the complainant and the builder failed.
The developer in his response to MahaRERA claimed that the plan was modified with the consent of 2/3rd of the allottees. The firm also claimed that “Trikal” was not an agent or representative.
The MahaRERA member pointed out that as the developer has accepted the booking done by the said agent, it is also liable to accept the commitment done by the said agent on its behalf.
The complainant was represented by advocate Sunil Kewalramani.
