Chennai: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld the order of a district consumer court directing a builder to refund Rs 7.80 lakh to a couple who failed to get a flat after paying the advance amount.
The bank denied them a housing loan as the builder violated the plan approval by constructing an eight-storeyed building instead of a four-storeyed one.
The petitioners, J. Leo Jayaraj and Padmini Jayaraj, represented by their power of attorney agent, S.R. Pasupathi of Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli district, submitted that they purchased a flat from M/s.
Pace Builders (Madras) Pvt Ltd, Anna Nagar, by paying an advance of Rs 1 lakh for the total cost of Rs 46.45 lakh. They entered into a sale-cum-construction agreement on May 12, 2007.
They paid Rs 6.80 lakh for the construction work to be taken up. The company, which gave them assurances of arranging a housing loan, failed to do so as it constructed the building, violating the approval plan and the sale-cum-construction agreement.
The petitioners sought a direction for the flat to be handed over to them after receiving the balance amount. Otherwise, they sought a compensation of Rs 12 lakh for having been caused mental agony and the refund of the advance amount.
While denying the allegations, the builder admitted to the receipt of Rs 7.80 lakh. Subsequently, the petitioners had not paid the balance amount and he, the builder, had never agreed to arrange the housing loan. In October 2012, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpet, directed the builder to refund Rs 7.80 lakh and pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Aggrieved over this, the builder filed the present appeal.
The bench comprising its president, Justice R. Regupathi and judicial member A.K. Annamalai said that as per the promise made by the company, a housing loan was not arranged and the bank had refused to sanction the loan because of deviation from approved plan and constructing an eight-storeyed building instead of a four-storeyed one.
Hence, the builder had not fulfilled the terms of the agreement. Dismissing the appeal, the bench said, “Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no need for interference by this Commission.”
