Wednesday, 24 December 2014

COURT RULES AGAINST BUILDERS WHO SOLD HOUSE TO 2 BUYERS

A Panvel Resident, whose pent House in Panvel was close to be connected by a Bank, has managed to retain the 1,687 sq.ft. Accommodation, due to associate order by the State consumer Court.The geographic area State consumer Commission has currently, directed the Builder to repay the loan of around Rs.12 large integer that had been taken by the previous Owner of the house.

The Owner and Occupier of the shut up House, Makrand Bharambe bought the pent House from the Builder, avatar Deshpande of Ashirwad Developers, in june 2008, for around Rs.19 lakh. Concerning 9 months later, he was sure a rude shock once officers of financial institution of India told him that the shut up House was encumbered to them. The Bank officers told Bharambe that they wished to seize the pent House that had been purchased by a precise Ketan crowned head, who had bought it in 2006 from Deshpande for Rs.12.5 lakh that he (Shah) had availed of a loan and defaulted on its reimbursement.


At this stage, whereas crowned head occupied the pent House, it absolutely was the Bank that was its rightful Owner.With his inability to repay, crowned head two-handed over possession of the house to the Builder,who successively oversubscribed it to Bharambe while not informing the new emptor concerning the loan that crowned head had availed of and defaulted on.

The Consumer body has command the Builder guilty of deficiency in services. So, besides repaying the loan quantity to the Bank, the Builder has additionally been directed to pay an extra Rs.1 large integer for having caused mental harassment to Bharambe and Rs.50,000 towards proceedings value.

When the Bank officers wished to seize the pent House, Bharambe had confronted the Builder who shifted the burden on the loan default the previous Owner. The Builder told Bharambe that he had off the previous Sale Agreement and had it given from crowned head by repaying him the initial quantity that he had paid. The Builder’s defence was that shah had not intimated the Bankers concerning the cancellation of the Sale Agreement.

However, the two-member bench of the commission comprising P.N. Kashalkar and Dhanraj Khamatkar directed the Builder involved the loan burden. The Commission ascertained that, the Builder had cheated Bharambe by mercantilism a similar flat twice–first to crowned head and so to Bharambe.
The Builder had remained absent throughout the proceedings before the patron commission inspite of being issued notices by the Consumer Court.


More,

No comments:

Post a Comment