Mumbai's GA Builders ordered to give buyer a new home

Five years after a prominent developer refused to hand over a flat in a new residential tower at Ghatkopar to a senior academic and his wife after they had paid for it, the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has ordered the builder to give the couple an apartment in the vicinity of the building and also pay Rs 7 lakh as compensation. Instead of a flat, the couple also has the option of getting a refund of the amount of around Rs 22 lakh they had paid the builder along with 21% interest. The commission further quantified the compensation amount at Rs 7 lakh for the couple’s mental agony and physical suffering. Professor KirtiLaddha and his wife Shruti had booked the flat on the 11th floor of a redeveloped building RNA Sagar, constructed by GA Builders (an RNA Corporation Group company) in 2009. Professor Laddha is the dean of infrastructure and campus development at the Institute of Chemical Technology in Mumbai. In April 2013, the developer wrote to the couple cancelling the booking saying that the flat booked by them could not be given to them. The couple filed a consumer complaint through their lawyer Vinay Rathi. The couple claimed that they had paid around Rs 38 lakh, including Rs 15 lakh in cash. The commission said that there were no receipts for the cash payment and there was only proof that the developer had accepted around Rs22.84 lakh. The developer admitted the couple had booked the flat but refuted the claims of deficiency. The developer said that it was a redevelopment project of PantnagarGangasagar housing society. Following a legal dispute, an order of the Bombay high court in 2011 resulted a reduction in the Floor Space Index available for the project. Consequently, the number of floors were reduced from 15 to 11. The commission rejected the builder’s contentions and pointed out that even after 2011, the developer had written letters to the couple about change of flooring, change of height of building and revised schedule of payment. The builder had also accepted payment instalments from the couple during this period. The commission said it could have accepted the developer’s case if they had cancelled the booking immediately after the 2011 HC order. “There is clear-cut deficiency on the part of (the builder),” the bench said.