Stories

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Lodha Developers and its other companies to refund a senior-citizen couple nearly ₹5 crore for unilaterally issuing a termination letter for an apartment booked at World Towers in Lower Parel.

The Chatterjees, retired senior citizens, who had booked a 3 BHK apartment in World Crest’s World Towers with two parking slots for ₹12,22,22,160, have filed a complaint against Lodha Developers.

The booking was made under the 20:80 payment scheme, where the latter portion was to be financed by the Chatterjees by selling their existing accommodation.

They were promised delivery by March 2016, but they decided to exit the project. The developer asked them to shift their booking to a 4 BHK with three garages in another project, ‘The Park’, in the vicinity, for ₹8 crore – possession would be given in June 2018.

By then, they had paid ₹2.52 crore for the earlier apartment, which was transferred to the second, larger residence. In October 2016, the builder informed them that the flat’s price had been revised to ₹10 crore, requiring them to pay an additional ₹2 crore.

They once again decided to cancel the booking but were told that a 10% cancellation fee, amounting to ₹1.2 crore, would be levied.

After demonetisation was announced in November 2016 and real estate prices crashed, the Chatterjees received calls from the marketing department, offering similar flats at around ₹7-8 crore. However, the developer refused to extend the revised price to the senior citizens.

Therefore, the complainant approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complainants, through their lawyer, claimed that despite paying ₹2,83,59,554, they received neither a refund nor possession, yet the builder terminated the booking.

Opposing the contention, the developer claimed the petition was a “gross abuse of process of law” and that they were justified in terminating the agreement and forfeiting 10% of the consideration amount.

In their argument, the developer claimed the Chatterjees were unable to take a workable stand and failed to make payments as per the milestones. Moreover, they had bought the flat “purely for investment purposes”.

After hearing both sides, the commission decided that the developers’ actions constituted a deficiency in service. It also observed that the builder had “unilaterally” issued a termination letter and deducted a substantial portion of the amount paid solely on grounds of payment delay. Such a unilateral stance is not permissible under the law.

The commission held that the developer had made a misleading representations regarding the failure to deliver possession of the flat within the stipulated timeframe, had committed a breach of trust, and was guilty of unfair trade practices.

Hence, the developer will have to not only refund the entire sum of ₹2.83 crore, but also pay the Chatterjees 10% interest starting August 2018, amounting to ₹2.12 crore.

If you are unable to get any resolution from the real estate company even after informing them about your problem, then you should File a Complaint at Voxya.com to take legal action and approach consumer forum.

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link –https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

File a complaint now

Recently, the Nagpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Axis Bank liable for deficiency in service after a failed ATM transaction where the machine failed to dispense cash despite debiting the user’s account.

In this case, the complainant filed a complaint against Axis Bank, the complainant was a resident of Nagpur, attempted to withdraw ₹5,000 from an Axis Bank ATM. While the machine failed to dispense the currency, the amount was successfully debited from his account held with the Central Bank of India.

He got very tense due to this glitch of the machine, so he immediately filed this grievance with Axis Bank, followed by multiple communications with customer care and the bank’s head office. Despite these efforts, the bank failed to address the concern and dismissed the claim.

Seeking redressal for “mental and physical harassment,” the customer subsequently approached the Nagpur District Consumer Commission.

The matter was heard ex parte as Axis Bank failed to appear before the Commission or file any evidence, despite being served a formal legal notice.

In its verdict delivered last month, the Commission observed that the bank had failed to take the customer’s grievance “seriously.” Crucially, the bench noted that the bank did not produce any evidence of a proper internal inquiry, nor did it provide CCTV verification of the transaction in question.

From the documents on record, it is clear that the bank did not take any of the complainant’s complaints seriously,” the Commission held. It further noted that the bank’s failure to provide a fair hearing through the ombudsman process further aggravated the deficiency in service.

The Commission opined that the fact that the customer did not receive the money while his account was debited constituted a clear “deficiency in service” on the part of the bank.

The Commission directed Axis Bank to refund the original transaction amount of ₹5,000 to the complainant. Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for the mental and physical harassment endured by the customer over the eight-year period.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve a Banking Complaint, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, held the Indian Railways liable for deficiency in service after finding that passengers with confirmed reservations found their seats occupied by unauthorized and ticketless passengers in the sleeper coaches.

In this case, the complainant, who was a senior citizen, filed a complaint against Indian Railway, as his confirmed booked sleeper class ticket on the Kanyakumari–Pune Express was occupied by unreserved and ticketless passengers.

The complainants contacted Ticket Examiner (TTE) and Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel but were unable to find any, then lodged complaints through the Rail Madad application, but despite assurances from railway authorities, no effective action was taken for a considerable period.

As the journey progressed, the overcrowding intensified, with passengers lying on the floor and beneath the lower berths, making it extremely difficult for the complainants to access the washrooms.

The complainants therefore approached the Kerala Consumer Commission seeking refund of the ticket fare and compensation for deficiency in service.

The Railways submitted that TTEs and RPF personnel attended the coaches at Tiruppur, Erode and Jolarpettai stations after receiving the Rail Madad complaints and removed unauthorized passengers. They further argued that the complaint was filed almost one year after the incident, suggesting that the complainants had approached the Commission only to obtain monetary benefits.

The Commission rejected the contention that the Ministry of Railways was an unnecessary party, observing that since the complaint related to deficiencies in railway services, the Ministry could legitimately be made a party to the proceedings.

The Commission noted that the complainant had produced tickets, Rail Madad complaint screenshots, and photographs showing severe overcrowding in the sleeper coaches. The photographs clearly showed passengers lying on the floor and under the berths, making it impossible for passengers with confirmed reservations to travel comfortably.

The Commission also noted that the Railways failed to produce any evidence or examine railway staff such as the TTEs to substantiate their claim that unauthorized passengers were promptly removed. The Commission noted that in such overcrowded conditions passengers who booked tickets could not have a safe and comfortable journey and that the Railways, being service providers, were bound to ensure proper arrangements for passengers. Their failure to do so amounted to deficiency in service.

The Commission found deficiency in service and directed the railway authorities to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹25,000 as litigation costs to the complainants.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve a Travel Complaint, then Talk To A Lawyer now!