The forum also said that after the project was revised, no fresh agreement were executed with the complainants.
In its ruling passed recently in favour of the complainants- Amit Monterio and Francis Monterio, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum told the construction firm, Vijaykamal Properties, that the flat buyers cannot be held responsible for pending litigations.
The duo had booked a flat in a building located in Kandivali (W) Mumbai in 2014. They had made an initial payment of Rs 15,51,168 to Vijaykamal Properties for the flat costing Rs 77,55,840.
As per the agreement, the duo was supposed to get the possession by June 2017.
However, the builder failed to hand over the property and did not even complete the construction, the complainants said.
They said that the construction firm did not respond to the legal notice sent by them. Following which they approached the consumer forum, seeking refund of the amount paid.
In the reply before the forum, the builder argued that he could not hand over possession of the flat due to multiple litigations pending against the property.
He further submitted that Origin Realtors LLP was also introduced as a co-promoter in the project, which was then revised and registered with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) and as per the new plan, the project was expected to be completed by December 31, 2023.
The forum, however, said, “Due to multiple litigations the opponent could not give possession of the flat to the complainants. However, for these litigations complainants cannot be held responsible.”
The forum also said that after the project was revised, no fresh agreement were executed with the complainants. Therefore, the buyers should have got possession of the flat by June 2017 as per the deed executed earlier.
Since the realtors failed to hand over the flat within that time, the duo should get the refund of the amount they had paid, it added.
It directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the buyer alongwith interest of 9 per cent per annum and also ordered him to pay Rs 10,000 towards the cost of litigation.