Noida: District consumer commission has ordered Dhanya Promoters Private Ltd (a Mahagun enterprise) to return Rs 2 lakh to a homebuyer, along with compensation of Rs 2,000, for failing to deliver the flat on the agreed terms and promised furnishings. The commission observed from documents on record that the promoters admitted to shortcomings in the finishing and offered to adjust the amount.A complaint had been filed with the commission by Indirapuram resident Vaidhi Sharma against the promoters on March 9. She said they were constructing a residential project called Mahagun Mantra-1 in Sector 10, Greater Noida West. She applied for a flat with a 980-square-foot built-up area under Mahagun group’s Great India Property Scheme, launched on Sept 4, 2016.According to the allotment letter, she received a flat on the ninth floor of a tower for Rs 43.4 lakh. She signed a builder-buyer agreement on Oct 1, 2016. She told the commission that the promoters promised her free services including car parking, ACs in the living room and bedrooms, wardrobes, a modular kitchen without a chimney or hob, access to the Sarovarh Park, Plaza membership for two years, monthly maintenance, bank loan processing fees, no fee on the first transfer and double penalty for delayed possession.However, several facilities were not provided and as the possession was given during the Covid-19 pandemic, she took it without visiting the property.She said the developer did not fulfil the assurances given and made excuses despite her repeated requests to complete the works. Responding to her requests, the group offered to return Rs 2 lakh but never returned the amount.The commission accepted the complaint and served notices on the promoter, but it neither appeared nor filed a counterclaim. The proceedings then continued in its absence from May 13.The commission concluded that Sharma had provided sufficient evidence to prove that the group committed a deficiency in service. by failing to refund the Rs 2 lakh and adjusting the amount in a credit note. Therefore, the plaintiff’s complaint is admissible.Commission president Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma on Oct 12 disposed of the matter ex parte in the absence of any response from the promoters. “A review of the facts, circumstances, and records of the case clearly shows that Sharma had made the full payment to the promoters, yet they failed to provide all the benefits. When she demanded a refund, the promoters stated that they were completing the process. She could either receive a refund or use a credit note. However, to date, neither has the money been refunded nor has the issue been resolved,” the commission noted.
About The Author
