Neelam Yeshwant Aldankar vs TRIMURTI BUILDERS

MR . Yeshwant Aldankar, husband of the Complainant - Mrs. Neelam Yeshwant Aldankar and Mohd. Wasay Khan, Counsel for the Respondent were present yesterday. Mr.Yeshwant Aldankar was heard and the counsel for the respondent was also partly heard. Counsel for the respondent wanted to be heard today. We have heard him.

THE facts of this case are these. Mrs. Neelam Yeshwant Aldankar, the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of flat bearing no. 901 at 9th Floor at Trimurti Tower at Navi Mumbai with M/s Trimurti Builders and Developers -OP. It was agreed that the area of flat was 911 sq.ft. The entire consideration in the sum of Rs.10,80,000/ - was paid by the complainant to the OP. It was agreed that the complainant would pay further amount towards water, electricity and society transfer charges and accordingly she paid Rs.80,000/ - to the OP, though, subsequently, the complainant protested that the OP had charged excessive money for the said purposes.

IT is also averred that the OP further demanded a sum of Rs.36,000/ - being the excess amount from the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint but the State Commission dismissed the complaint after hearing the parties. The counsel for the respondent submits, as per instructions, the OP is ready to pay Rs.36,000/ - from the date when it was received by them. It also transpired that the complainant made a request that her flat was not increased by 25 sq. ft. but she had to cough up a sum of Rs.33,125/ -. The complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.33125/ - before taking the possession meaning thereby that she was made to pay that sum under the nose. Husband of the complainant yesterday vehemently argued that no area was increased at all. This is a flower bed area but the area is same. The same is not yet approved by the Municipal Authorities.

ON the other hand counsel for the respondent has invited our attention towards the letter dated 23.06.2005 by the OP where it is mentioned that the total area is 936 sq.ft. This letter is dated 23.06.2005. There is one other letter. There is over -writing on the date 24/25/11/2004 wherein the area mentioned by the OP is 935 sq.ft. It is stated that approval of this area had been received but the said approval did not see the light of the day. The respondent should have produced the approval but the needful was not done. It is also surprising to note how the OP could increase the area unilaterally and without consent of the OP and there are contradictions on these letters.

KEEPING in view all the facts and circumstances, we hereby order that the costs of additional amount in the sum of Rs.31,125/ - shall be borne by both the parties in equal shares.

THE second question is that the respondent has not handed over the conveyance deed to the complainant. The case pertains to the year 2004. Counsel for the respondent submits that he has put up all the papers now, as previously, there was dispute between the landlord and the builder. These are only oral instructions, which are not bolstered by any evidence. The consumer makes payment of hard earned whole life''s investment to get a house. 11 years have elapsed but she is still waiting for conveyance deed. It is well said that justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined. The respondent is directed to hand over the conveyance deed to the petitioner, within a period of 90 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise he will have to pay penalty of Rs.500/ - per day till the conveyance deed is ready.

RESPONDENT is further directed to pay Rs.36,000/ - plus Rs.15,562.50 with interest @ 12% from the date of payment till refund or its realization.

THE matter stands disposed of.