The court has ordered the company to hand over all the documents and also compensate the borrower with over Rs 1.3 lakh. C Sathyanathan, a 58-year-old resident of MSR Nagar in Bengaluru, took a loan of Rs 60 lakh from CanFin Homes Ltd in September 2014, at an interest rate of 11.20% per annum.

The loan, meant for purchasing a plot and constructing a house, had a 15-year repayment tenure with a monthly EMI of Rs 68,965. However, after quitting his job and utilizing his pension and savings, Sathyanathan decided to clear the entire loan in 2018 to focus on other family responsibilities.

In September 2018, he requested the return of his property documents from CanFin Homes, but the company failed to respond to his request.

Frustrated after waiting for a year, Sathyanathan approached the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bengaluru and filed a complaint, accusing CanFin Homes of withholding his original property documents despite the full repayment of the loan.

In its defense, CanFin Homes claimed that Sathyanathan still owed Rs 1.20 lakh as a penalty and had violated the loan agreement, which required him to purchase a site and build a house. They argued that although he had bought the land, no house had been constructed.

After reviewing all the evidence from both sides, the consumer court ruled that CanFin Homes had shown a deficiency in its services. The court determined that the company had failed to present sufficient evidence to support its claim that Sathyanathan still owed them money.

The commission ordered CanFin Homes to return the original title deed and other related documents to Sathyanathan.

Additionally, the company was directed to pay a fine of Rs 100 per day, from the date of the court order until the documents are returned.

The court further instructed the company to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for service deficiency, Rs 20,000 for mental distress caused to the complainant, and Rs 10,000 towards legal expenses.
The housing finance company has been given a 45-day deadline to comply with the court’s ruling.

The post Consumer Court Orders CanFin Homes to Pay Fine for Withholding Property Documents appeared first on .

The commission has directed the LIT to reimburse Hem Raj Kapila of Gill Road for the compensation within 30 days of receiving a copy of the judgment; if they don’t, they risk being further penalized by having to pay interest on the amount due, which will accrue at the rate of 8% annually from the date of the order until it is actually paid.

According to the complainant, on February 26, 2005, he submitted an application and paid Rs 1, 50,000 for the allotment of HIG 108 and HIG Super 54 multi-story semi-finished flats to be built in Rajeev Enclave, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, under the Self-Financing Scheme.

The opposing parties allocated HIG an apartment under the development project on April 29, 2005, the day of the flat allocation draw. He was required to pay the whole cost of the apartment in instalments totalling Rs 14,60,000 in accordance with the payment plan.

In relation to the apartment allotment, the opposing parties executed an agreement of sale dated June 21, 2006 in his favor. He paid Rs 2, 74,150 via demand draft dated October 4, 2005, which was returned due to the delay.

The postponement was then excused on May 2, 2006. The complainant went on to say that he paid the Rs. 2, 19,000 instalment dated September 7, 2006. He allegedly went back to deposit the draft and a banker’s check for Rs. 2, 19,000 dated March 7, 2007, but the opposing party’s official would not accept it.

After receiving a letter from the complainant, the opposing parties informed the complainant in writing on April 26, 2007, about a civil court stay on the apartments, which prevented construction from beginning.

On December 11, 2006, the executive engineer issued an order deferring the receipt of installments until additional orders were received. They also stated that they would provide a new installment schedule for deposit after obtaining the stay dismissed.

The complaint claims that he often went to the opposing parties’ office to request the issuing of a new installment plan and the possession of the apartment that was given to him, but he was never successful.

The plaintiff added that just 21 of the 162 flats that were supposed to be built under this scheme—including his own—had their construction suspended by opposing parties as a result of court orders. Of the 141 flats that remain, 95 have been turned over to their respective allottees, leaving only 46 empty.

The complaint attempted to turn over control of the apartment to the opposing parties, as did a few other allottees who were suffering as a result of the OPs’ negligence, carelessness, and lack of service, but to no avail.

The plaintiff was, nevertheless, prepared to pay the remaining amount in installments, provided that a new schedule was issued and the apartment was delivered. The complainant served them with a legal notice dated June 12, 2020, but they did not respond.

Therefore, the complaint has requested that the opposing parties give him vacant possession of the apartment after accepting rescheduled payments for the remaining installments or grant the complainant an apartment in their other scheme under the same terms and conditions. It has also requested compensation in the amount of Rs. 2, 00,000 and reimbursement for Rs. 55,000 for legal fees.

The post The Ludhiana Improvement Trust has been compelled to pay Rs 1 lakh for the 14-year delay in flat possession. appeared first on .

Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, sitting as a division bench, issued the ruling while noting that the structure, which was still under construction when it collapsed in the Garden Reach neighborhood, lacked a sanction plan.

“It has been constructed over a body of water that has existed for the past forty years. The chief justice stated, taking note of the report submitted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, “that the land conversion was authorized by the land revenue officer and the block land.”

The panel ordered the state government to provide the relatives of the deceased an additional Rs 3 lakh in compensation, on top of the Rs 2 lakh ex gratia that each family had already received. In addition, the division bench ordered the state to give each injured person an additional Rs 1 lakh in addition to the Rs 50,000 they had already paid.

In the Garden Reach case, the division bench further ordered the petitioner to send notice to Shams Iqbal, the local council member, and the developer, who is currently incarcerated at the Presidency Correctional Home. The chief justice declined to accept that comparable unpermitted constructions were occurring in the city without the consent of MLAs or local council members.

“What was the elected official doing throughout the construction? The CJ noted that they were unfit to remain in their position. Attorney Jaydeep Kar for KMC argued that the accused cops had been suspended by the civic body at the court’s request.

The court voiced its “anguish” about the absence of “official and political will” on the part of the authorities to carry out the court orders on unauthorized structures to their logical conclusion, even as it noted the KMC’s move to welcome complaints about unauthorized projects from the residents.

“Without official and political will, the enforcing agency cannot take action. There has been no activity at Bidhannagar. After visiting the location, the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate leaves, citing protests from the general population.

Yesterday, something similar occurred in another area of the city, according to the CJ. “Free reign should be granted to executive engineers.” Please let your cops do their jobs. You support them,” he remarked.

The CJ took use of the occasion to highlight the KMC’s inability to control hawkers operating in front of the organization’s offices.

Because the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme was revised in 2017 and simply sets the lowest limit of compensation rather than capping the maximum limit, the court sided with the state and enhanced the payout.

The post Without an approved plan, no building registration Calcutta High Court. appeared first on .

The new rules for real estate have made relief for all home buyers. There are so many acts, norms, rules & regulation which support the hard earned money of a buyer. A similar case happened in Gurugram in which NCDRC ordered Unitech Limited to refund Rs 1.7crores to a home buyer along with 10% simple interest per annum compensation. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) charged Unitech Limited for a 2-year delay in handing over possession of a property in Gurugram.

The apex consumer’s commission requested the company to reimburse the Gurugram residents, Amal and Minakshi Ganguli, for a delay of over two years in the delivery of the possession and to refund within 3 months Rs 1.77,95,300 also to pay compensation of simple interest by 10% annually.

The Gangulis had booked the flat on 24th March 2014 for which Unitech Limited promised to give possession by 21st March 2017. The apartment was booked with Unitech Limited in its ‘The Exquisite project in Nirvana Country 2 which was to be developed in Gurugram. As the real estate dominator failed to give the possession even after 2 years of delay, Gauli filed a complaint against them.

The post NCDRC ordered Unitech Limited to Refund Rs 1.7crores to a home-buyer. appeared first on .

Gone are the days, when a buyer was struggling to get possession for a property. Now, people can expect to get some sort of result for their real estate problems.

Just like many other cases, a similar case was found in which a buyer had paid some advance along with stamp duty but never got the possession. A Lower-Parel resident Shrivastava said that she had booked the flat on the 13th floor of the building (Prarthana Heights). This complaint has been registered with the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2015. According to the agreement done on 26th December 2005, Shrivastava was supposed to get the possession on December 2007 which was not given as it was agreed. Shrivastava had paid Rs 64lakh along with stamp duty.

The state consumer commission ordered Prarthana Builder to hand over a 790sq.ft flat in Lower-Parel and also pay Rs 21lakh compensation to the buyer for the delay. The buyer purchased the property for Rs 71lakh in 2005 but was never given possession of the flat.

The court also mentioned that if the flat is not been given within 2 months, then the builder would have to pay an extra Rs 50,000 each month to Madhumati Lele Shrivastava.  The compensation amount of Rs 21Lakh includes reimbursement for the rent which Shrivastava had to shell out over the years.

As the problem was occurred by the builder and not by the purchaser, the commission refused the offer given by the builder, Prarthana Enterprises who wanted to refund Rs 64lakh paid as booking amount.

The builder had agreed to pay Rs 50,000  a month as a rent amount until possession is given, but Shrivastava said the commission that neither did the builder pay rent for a single month nor did he handed over the possession of the flat.

Further, she said she is willing to pay the remaining Rs 7lakh, but the builder should give her a flat of similar size, with similar amenities, within 1 km of the existing flat. The builder argued that there was a delay in returning the possession since there were stop work notices from the corporation from time to time.

Refuting the defence, the commission said, “It is very clear from those stop-work notices and other reasons that the complainant has no role in it and hence, the complainant cannot suffer.”  The commission said that the fact remained that the builder did not hand over possession of the flat, as agreed. “Thus, there is clear- cut deficiency in service on the part of the opponents,” the commission said.

The post Builder Pays Rs 21 lakh compensation for a 12 year delayed flat – Lower Parel appeared first on .