CHENNAI: The State Consumer Redressal Commission (SCRC) has directed a real estate company to pay `10 lakh to a couple as compensation for failing to complete an apartment project many years after the scheduled completion date.
In addition to the compensation, the commission has also asked the Coimbatore-based Sri Renga Property Developers Private Ltd to repay `72.52 lakh, which the couple has incurred by way of advances paid and incurring loan interest for flats.
The petitioners, Sajan Thandaserry and his wife Maduhlatha Dharma, currently residing in the USA, in June 2008 booked a 1,800 square feet apartment in a project built by Sri Renga Property Developers in Coimbantore. The total price of the flat was `51 lakhs and the couple had taken a housing loan for `40 lakh, with the remaining amount being met by funds from other sources.
As per the builder’s agreement, the completed flat was to have been handed over by December 31, 2008. However, the petitioners alleged that the construction was carried out at a snail’s pace and in July, 2009 the realtor said in a communication that the construction work has been handed over to another company called Mint Homes Pvt Limited. Subsequently, in December 15, 2010, the realtor through a communication, informed their inability to proceed with the project. But, they failed to return the amount already received from the customers.
Sajan and Maduhlatha filed the petition in the commission submitting that they have suffered a financial loss of `23.50 lakh through interest and other charges paid towards the loan amount. They contended that the real estate company must pay `23.50 lakh and a further `51 lakh, the price of the flat. In addition, they sought `10 lakh as compensation for the mental agony.
After hearing the arguments of both parties, the commission rejected the real estate firm’s argument that it cannot be held responsible as the project was subsequently taken over by another company. The commission comprising judicial member J Jayaram and member P Bakayavathi said, “We hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainants are entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties.”