Builder can’t alter layout despite authority nod

A builder can neither change the layout nor alter or deprive a flat purchaser of the promised amenities by obtaining permission of the local authority to change the sanctioned plan.Case Study: Marathon Realty, formerly Chhaganlal Khimji, constructed a building in Mulund. Flat purchasers formed the Monte Vista Residence Welfare Association, but the proposed Monte Vista CHS was yet to be registered. When all attempts to resolve the grievance failed, the association and the proposed society filed a complaint before Maharashtra State Consumer Commission against the builder, its directors Mayur and Chetan Shah, and BMC's executive engineer of building proposal (eastern suburbs).
According to the complaint, flat purchasers had been induced to book flats based on representation in the builder's brochure stating that world-class facilities would be provided along with club house and basement parking. Later, when the agreements were executed, they were not in accordance with the Model Form provided under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). The builder not only illegally charged extra amounts, ranging from Rs 4 lakh to Rs 6 lakh for allotment of parking space, but also did not provide basement parking. Instead, it was to be diverted to the BMC under the Public Parking Lot Scheme, jeopardising security of residents. Before the occupation certificate was obtained, possession of flats was given for fit out, yet deposit for maintenance charges of about Rs 1 lakh was collected from each purchaser. The builder had deviated from specifications of some of the promised amenities, such as swimming pool and gymnasium, so that three extra unauthorized flats could be constructed. The recreation ground, shown in the original plan to be in front of the building, was diverted for construction of a new building which was not mentioned earlier. The builder contested the case. The company stated that at the time of handing over possession, an undertaking had been taken from the flat purchasers not to object to the basement parking being handed over to BMC for public parking. The builders claimed they would be developing a children's play area, jogging track, garden and other landscaping only on top of another structure in lieu of what was originally promised.
The commission did not agree with the builder's argument that the complaint was not maintainable. It said the welfare association was entitled to file a complaint. The builder's contention that the complaint was beyond limitation was also overruled, observing that the complaint was filed within two years from the date of possession.
The commission considered various precedents and concluded that disclosures made in the brochure or other promotional materials are important and binding as they induce consumers to book flats. Accordingly , by its order dated February 10, delivered by Dhanraj Khamtkar for the bench along with Usha Thakare, the commission held the builders guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Marathon Realty was also ordered to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation and Rs 50,000 as costs.
Impact: Representations made in a brochure are binding.
Courtesy Yezdi Motiwalla

Delay in possession of flat - losses are more

Builder delays will cost you.

Gaurav Prakash had bought a house in 2011, but is still waiting for construction to finish. In the meanwhile he has to pay not only the loan instalments but also rent which increases his cost of acquisition.
Gaurav Prakash, 35, is a senior solution architect working with Ericsson India Ltd, in Gurgaon. But a problem that he can’t find a solution to is his house. Towards the end of 2011, he along with his wife Sashi Pandey, a 35-year-old senior manager in a telecom company, bought an under-construction apartment of about 2,000 sq. ft in Dwarka Expressway, which falls roughly between Gurgaon and Dwarka (on the south-western periphery of New Delhi).

The house cost them Rs.70 lakh, for which the couple took a home loan. They were told that they will get possession by around June 2014, but that didn’t happen. And like scores of other urban Indians, they too, are still waiting for the house two years later.

But apart from the house being not available, what bothers them, and others alike, is that they are not able to make use of the substantial tax benefits available on a home loan. And then there’s the rent they continue to pay. “We are paying Rs.52,000 as equated monthly instalment (EMI), and Rs.28,000 as rent every month,” said Prakash. So, it’s a triple whammy. Here’s why.

The couple had taken a construction-linked home loan. For two years, construction progressed well and the developer asked for about 90% of the cost based on the stage of the project. But after that, construction almost stopped. As of now, the estimated date of possession is June 2016.

The two-year delay in completion has substantially increased the effective cost of purchasing the house. And most of these costs will not get added while determining the cost of acquisition at the time of calculating capital gains if and when the house is sold. But that comes much later, since the couple doesn’t have the house yet, as also many other home buyers.

“Typically, a delay of 1-2 quarters can be expected in almost every project,” said Anuj Puri, chairman and country head, JLL India. “However, certain projects that are stuck due to funding or approval related issues get delayed much beyond that. We have observed delays ranging from 12 to 18 months for such projects,” added Puri.

Data from PropEquity Analytics Pvt. Ltd, a realty research and analysis firm, supports this. The average delay in possession of housing units which were scheduled to be delivered between 2013 and 2015 is of 30 months in the National Capital Region (NCR). This is followed by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) with an average delay of 26 months. The average delay in Kolkata is of 24 months and in Pune, Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad, it is 20 months.

Project delay not only restrains home buyers from shifting into their own houses, but also has a big impact on the cost of purchase. Here’s a look at how much that impact can be and how it happens.

Problem No.1: Paying both EMI and rent

If there is delay in possession, a home buyer usually has to pay the home loan EMI and the rent of the house she is staying in. For Prakash and Pandey, both put together comes to about Rs.80,000 a month. So, bearing in mind that possession of their house is already running behind schedule by two years, their cost of purchase has increased by Rs.6.72 lakh (based on the rent they are paying for two years; Rs.28,000 for 24 months). Even if we take into account the compensation for delay that the developer has promised to pay, which is only about Rs.7.5 per sq. ft per month, they will get Rs.2.7 lakh (Rs.15,000 for 18 months). But usually, developers do not pay compensation for the grace period, mostly of 6 months.

So, even in a best case scenario (that the project is not delayed further and developer pays the compensation), the couple’s cost has increased by at least Rs.4.02 lakh (Rs.6.72 minus Rs.2.7 lakh).

Problem No.2: Loss of home loan tax benefits

According to the Income-tax Act, 1961, a borrower can claim deduction under section 80C against principal repayment, which has an overall limit of Rs.1.5 lakh, and up to Rs.2 lakh for payment of interest under section 24(b) for a self-acquired house. If it is leased out, then the entire interest paid on home loan can be claimed as deduction.

But, “the benefit of claiming principal repayments under section 80C is also tied to ownership. Until the construction of the property is complete and you have the registration and ownership documents, you will not be able to claim for this deduction,” said Archit Gupta, founder and chief executive officer, ClearTax.in. So, no possession means no tax benefit on the huge home loan. And that’s not all.

Further, “you can claim the entire principal repayment done in a year, under section 80C, in the year in which your ownership is established,” added Gupta. Whereas the interest paid during the construction period can be claimed as deduction in five equal instalments, starting from the year of possession.

“If construction is not completed within three years, the maximum deduction allowed to a tax payer for interest on home loan is limited to Rs.30,000 per annum,” said Gupta. So, for Prakash and Pandey, since the project is still on four years after they took a loan, the tax break they can claim on the interest paid is only Rs.30,000 each, and that too only after they get possession. Had the house been available to them on time, they would have got a tax deduction

Problem No.3: Loss due to income tax

The pain continues since there is also income tax to pay on the money that the couple is not able to save based on the tax deductions. If we consider them to be in the highest tax bracket of 30.9%, instead of getting a tax benefit of about Rs.20.21 lakh in 20 years (their loan’s tenor), they will be able to save only about Rs.3.63 lakh. That means a loss of Rs.16.58 lakh.

An individual borrower would have saved Rs.11.4 lakh in 20 years, instead of Rs.1.84 lakh, because of project delay. That means a loss of Rs.9.54 lakh.

Problem No.4: There are other costs also

“Service tax has increased from 12.36% to 14.5%. I will have to bear that,” said Prakash. In budget 2015-16, service tax rate was increased to 14% from 12.36%, and effective November 2015, Swachh Bharat cess of 0.5% was added to it, making the effective rate 14.5% in total.

For an under-construction property, service tax is charged on the cost of construction; cost of land is excluded. For the purpose of calculation, 25% of the gross value of an under-construction unit with value less than Rs.1 crore is considered to be the cost of construction, and service tax is applied on this. So, Prakash and Pandey, if we take the cost of the apartment to be around Rs.70 lakh, they will have to pay service tax on Rs.17.5 lakh. Considering the increase in the applicable rate, they will now have to pay Rs.2.54 lakh (14.5% of Rs.17.5 lakh) instead of Rs.2.16, an increase of Rs.38,000.

Then there is inflation. “If getting the interiors done would have cost us Rs.10 lakh, it will now cost Rs.12 lakh,” said Prakash.

While some of the costs can vary and will depend on a person’s personal choice, the fact remains that the overall cost of service has only gone up.

If we take into account all the hikes in expenses and losses that the couple has had to bear, their effective cost of purchasing the house would now be Rs.92.98 lakh. If they had got possession on time, the house would have cost them Rs.70 lakh. This means an increase of about 33% in cost of purchase.

If you buy an under-construction property, and it gets stuck, there is limited scope of getting out. Not only do you have to pay both EMI and rent, if you want to sell the house, finding a buyer for a project running behind schedule can be difficult. Even if you do find a buyer, you may have to incur a heavy loss, as you may not be able to get the right price to recover the cost.

If you are an end-user, selling and buying a house in a completed project may not be a feasible option. You will have to sell your current house at a loss and the new completed house will come at a premium.

So, first try to look at the other options. “Look at the clauses in the agreement for penalties that one can pursue legally,” said Anil Rego, chief executive officer and founder, Right Horizons.

If for some reason you are unable to service the loan, “one can request the loan issuing bank to allow her to delay the loan payments. But in this case, the interest will get added to the principal and the total loan amount will increase. Moreover, not all banks will provide that facility,” said Rego.

If the delay is due to the developer, form a home buyers’ association and approach the developer jointly. “The best option is to talk to the developer and try to get the issue resolved as soon as possible,” said Rego. Try to convince the developer to enhance the compensation for the delay and complete the construction soon. If the developer does not pay heed to buyers’ demands, you can look for a legal recourse.

Last year, in June, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked real estate company Unitech Ltd. to pay buyers compensation at the rate of 12% per annum for delay in delivery of apartments, overruling the builder-buyer agreement that had set the rate at 1.8% per annum. While these recourses will not benefit you immediately, you may be able to recover some of the loss.

Under current conditions, project delay is the biggest risk for a home buyer. “ Given the companies’ stretched balance sheets and cashflow problems, we expect execution delays to persist in the short term,” said Samir Jasuja, founder and chief executive officer, PropEquity. If possible, avoid buying an under-construction property. It may be better to pay a premium to buy a completed apartment than being in a situation like that of Prakash and Pandey.

Also, do proper due diligence about the developer, track record of delivery, quality of projects and financial position, if possible, before buying a property.

(Courtesy - Live Mint news later article By ASHWINKUMAR Sharma )

If you like to donate some good NGO then pl do it

Bank Details for donations .....
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat
( Madhya Maharashtra)
Account no 014220100036658
Bank Janata Sahakari Bank
Branch Tilak Road Pune 411030
IFSC Code JSBP0000014

Snap deal fined for unfair trade practices

कंपनीच्या वेबसाइटवर जाऊन उत्पादनाची खरेदी करणं ग्राहक तसेच कंपनीच्या सोयीचं असलं तरी वेबसाइटवरील एखादी चूक कंपनीला किंवा ग्राहकांना महागात पडू शकते याचा प्रत्यय नुकताच आला. स्नॅपडीलची एक चूक कंपनीला चांगलीच महागात पडली आणि २९ हजाराचा 'आयफोन ५ एस' हा महागडा मोबाईल एका विद्यार्थ्याला अवघ्या ६८ रुपयात मिळाला.

पंजाब विद्यापीठातील बी-टेकचा विद्यार्थी निखिल बंसलला १२ फेब्रुवारी २०१५ रोजी स्नॅपडीलच्या वेबसाइटवर 'आयफोन ५ एस' वर ९९.७ टक्के डिस्काउंटची ऑफर दिसली. ही ऑफर दिसताच निखिलने तत्काळ ६८ रुपये ऑनलाइन भरून फोनची ऑर्डर दिली. फोनची ऑर्डर दिल्यानंतर निखिलला बरेच दिवस कंपनीकडून फोन दिला गेला नसल्याने निखिलने पंजाबच्या संगरूर जिल्हा ग्राहक मंचाकडे स्नॅपडीलविरुद्ध तक्रार दाखल केली. वेबसाइटने जी डिस्काउंटची ऑफर दिली होती त्यानुसार फोन देण्यात नकार दिला असं निखिलने तक्रारीत म्हटलं. तर आपली बाजू मांडताना कंपनीनं म्हंटलं की वेबसाइटवरील तांत्रिक बिघाड झाल्यामुळे ९९.७ टक्क्यांची डिस्काउंट दिसत होती, त्यामुळं निखिलला फोन देवू शकत नाही. परंतू कंपनीने केला दावा कोर्टाने खोडून काढला आणि निखिलला ६८ रुपयांत मोबाईल देण्याचा आदेश दिला. ग्राहकाची फसवणूक करणाऱ्या स्नॅपडीलला कोर्टाने २ हजारांचा दंडही ठोठावला.

स्नॅप़डीलने जिल्हा ग्राहक मंचाच्या आदेशाविरुद्ध पंजाब राज्य ग्राहक फोरममध्ये आव्हान दिले. परंतू पंजाब राज्य ग्राहक फोरमने ग्राहक मंचाचा आदेश कायम ठेवून स्नॅपडीलला दोन हजार रुपयांच्या दंडाऐवजी दहा हजाराचा दंड ठोठावला आणि निखिलला अवघ्या ६८ रुपयात फोन देण्याचा आदेश दिला.
Courtesy Maharastra Times

KDS builder fined

Iराजेश लाखोडे, मुळशी तहसील के ग्राहक पंचायत कार्यकर्ते ने मुझे एक गार्डन मे लोगों को संबोधीत करने के लीये 2012 के मध्य मे बुलाया. शहा 30-35 लोग थे. उन्होंने 50000 से 450000 तक के.डी.एस. बिल्डर के चर्होली गाव मे घरके लीये पैसे 2009 मे भरे थे मगर वह जमीन अब बिल्डर ने दुसरे को बेची थी और लोगो को पैसा भी वापस नही दे रहा था. पोलीस केस हुई थी मगर लोग अपने पैसे के लीये तरह रहे थे. कुछ लोगों को चेक दिया था मगर वह बाऊस हुये थे.

मैने सभी ग्राहकोको ईकठ्ठा आकर समीती स्थापन करने को कहा.  उसमे विजय खरमाळे ने नेत्रृत्व किया. आखिर 132 लोग ईकठ्ठा हुये. समीती की ओरसे बिल्डर को नोटीस दि गई. और 1 महीने मे घर दे या पैसा वापस देदो,18% ब्याज, घर की बढी कीमत का फरक और मानसिक तकलीफ  के लीये  जुर्माना देदो.

ग्राहक पंचायत ऑफीस मे बिल्डर और ग्राहको के बिच चर्चा करके समाधान निकाल ने की कोशिश की गई मगर बिल्डर नही माना.

ग्राहक पंचायत पुणे महानगर और ग्राहक समीती की ओर  से नई दिल्ली स्थित राष्ट्रीय आयोग मे केस दाखिल की गई. विजय खरमाळे ने खुद केस मे अपनी तरफसे बीना वकील पेशी की.
केस न. सीसी/356/2012

एक दीन ग्राहक पंचायत पुणे की तरफसे मैने पेशी करनेके लीये मै और विजय खरमाळे दिल्ली गये थे और कमीशन ने हमे दूसरे दीन फीर हीअरीग को आने को कहा. विजय की पत्नी की डिलेव्हरी डेट थी इस लीये मैने उसे वापस पूणे भेजा और दुसरे दिन कोर्ट मे मै गया. अपनी पत्नी को ऐसी हालात मे छोड़कर आना बडी बात थी.

ऊस दीन कोर्ट ने बिल्डर का जवाब लेट आने पर एक्स पार्टी ऐलान कीया.

बिल्डर सुप्रीम कोर्ट गया. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उसकी अर्जी खारीज  की.

बिल्डर ने फीर एस.एल.पी. फाईल की सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उसे भी खारीज कीया.

आखिर 17 फेब्रुवारी 2016 को राष्ट्रीय आयोग ने  आदेश दिया

1) रूपये  1,34,28,518/-  18% व्याज दर से वापस देना
2) रूपये 4,00,000/- कोर्ट खर्च
3) सभी पैसे 90 दिन मे देना वरना 400000/- पर भी 18% ब्याज देना पडेगा.

मै विजय खरमाळे को और सभी ग्राहकोको बधाई देता हू. सभी ग्राहकोको अनूरोध है
आप ईकठ्ठा हुये तो हम केस जीत सकते है

ORDER on
Complaint no CC/356/2012 NCDRC

PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Mr. Vijay Bhikaji Kharmale, one of the complainants is present.  Arguments heard.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Review Petition filed by the Opposite Party.  Evidence has already been filed.  Final arguments heard.

2.      M/s Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Branch Pune- Complainant No. 1 is a Volunteer Consumer Organization.  Ad-Hoc Committee for flat purchasers, and its representatives Mr. Vijay Bhikaji Kharmale and Mr. Ajay Eknath Suryawanshi are arrayed as Complainant No. 2.           

132 complainants booked the flats from the OP- M/s KDS Infra Buildcons and its partners, who were arrayed as Opposite Parties No. 2, 3 & 4.  Copy of details of payments paid by the complainants is attached with the complaint as Annexure C-6.
132 Consumers/allottees paid the booking amount of Rs.1,34,28,518/-. 

3.      The complainants state that they under the influence of mischievous advertisement as well as fraud assurance given by the builders, found the deficiency on the part of the OPs/Builders.  The complainants have not yet received the premises in dispute.  The said amount was paid in 2009/2010.  The complainants have pointed out the following deficiencies:-

“a)   The Respondent KDS Infra Buildcon advertised through newspapers, hoardings pamphlets/ brochures about their schemes namely KDS Dham and KDS Angan and gave attractive/ misleading advertisements and attracted complainants  by furnishing false information.

b)    The Respondent builder with the help of his Architecture prepared the drawing of the flats and displayed the same and also shown to the booking holders and started to take the bookings for the schemes named above and taken the amount ranging from Rs.50000/- Rs.450000/- as a booking amount from the customers’.

c)    The Respondent Builder issued booking receipts to the complainants but he has not made any agreement or MOU but he has committed to do the agreement in 2-3 month after the date of the booking and failed to do the agreement as per the commitment.

d)    After that, the respondent Builder contacted to all booking holders and asked to submit the documents like Payment slip, form 16 etc. for loan purpose and assured to do the agreement within some days and again not fulfilled his commitments.

e)    That the Respondent Builder had organized a meeting with all booking holders to update the status of the project at S.M.  Joshi Bhavan Khadki and declared that the project was delayed due some economical issues and asked for some more time to find the Financer and assured all booking holders for the completion of the project.

f)     The Respondent again conducted a meeting with all the booking holder at the same place and again asked some time for finding of the Financer but this time people not believed him and FIR registered by one of the complainant against the respondent Builder in Vishrantwadi Police Station, FIR copy is also attached with the complaint.

g)    Thereafter we came to know that the respondent builder sold the owned land on which the site was proposed and stopped all the activities at the site also closed his office which was at the above mentioned address.  Copy of the 7/12 extract is annexed herein as Annexure C-14.

h)    Respondent KDS builder had given cheque to one of the customer as the refund of booking amount but the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.  The copy of return cheque of one of the complainant is annexed herein as Annexure C-8.

The above said details of status of project shows that there is false representation made by the Respondent builder and made unfair trade practice within the consumer protection Act”.

4.      Ultimately, the complaint was filed before this Commission on 31.12.2012, with the following prayers:- PRAYER

(A)     That this Hon’ble National Commission is pleased to hold and declare that the services rendered by the Respondents are deficient and the practices adopted by the Respondents are unfair trade practices.

(B)     That if the Respondent Builder has failed to start the construction work of the proposed project and he has sold the land of this project also this Hon’ble National Commission is pleased to direct the Respondents Builder to return the total amount deposited by all the complainants as Rs.1,34,28518/- (as per the attached Annexure C-6)

(C )   That this Hon’ble National Commission is pleased to direct the Respondents Builder to pay the 18% interest on the above said amount from the date of depositing the amount paid to the Respondent Builder till realization of the above said amount to the Complainants.

(D)    That this Hon’ble National Commission may direct to the Respondent builder to pay the cost difference of cost escalation charges at the time of judgment (while booking the flat per sq. feet rate was Rs.1,800/- and in the same vicinity as on 01.12.2012, the market rate is Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft.  The difference is Rs.1200/- per sq. and same may be calculated and paid to each of the complainant separately at the time of judgment.

(E)     The compensation/ damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- be awarded in favour of  each of the complainant/ flat purchaser for the purchaser for the physical and mental harassment, agony and stress caused to them and their family members because of deficient services rendered and unfair trade practices adopted by the Respondent Builders.

(F)     That costs of these proceedings quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- be awarded in favour of the present complainant.

(G)    Any other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances may please be granted”.

5.      We have heard the Complainant Mr. Vijay Bhikaji kharmale and perused the evidence. We have gone through the documents under the heading “M T:- Office Letter of Rights (Village Sample No. 6)”, which runs as follows:-

“M T:- Office                           Letter of Rights (Village Sample No. 6)
  Village: Wadmukhwadi     Taluka:Haveli          Dist:Pune

Documentation Date 17/10/2013           Kamgar Talathi
                                                                   Vadmukhwadi, Tal-Haveli”

6.     The complainants were assured that the project at Charholi Bk Survey  No. 155  would start.  This has similarity with the above said sale order.  This is clear that the OPs had led the gullible persons up the garden path.

7.      At this stage counsel for the OP has appeared.  He admits that they have to pay back Rs.1,34,28,518/- to the complainants.  He further submits that the interest rate claimed by the complainants, i.e. 18%, is on the higher side. He submits that the person with whom he had the agreement further sold the property to the third party without his acknowledgment and therefore he was also cheated.  The above said sale order hardly dovetails with his contention.

8.      Counsel for the Opposite Party submits that only 10% of the amount was paid in the year 2009/2010.    It must be borne in mind that the complainants have waited for their houses for the last six years.  It is now apparent that the complainants would not get the houses during their lifetime from the OPs.  They will have to try somewhere else, which may  take a decade further.   It is well said that Justice delayed is not only Justice denied, it is also Justice  circumvented, Justice mocked and the system of Justice  undermined.  The opposite parties pull a fast one to consumers.  When they were to sell the land to a better buyer, it is difficult to fathom why did the OPs take the consumers for a ride.

9.      In the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal Nos. 6730-31 of 2012, decided on 19.09.2012,  the Hon’ble Apex Court  has held at paras 25  26,  as under :

“25.  The case of the complainant is covered by one of the examples  cited by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, as quoted above.  In this case also, the amount was simply returned and the complainant  is suffering a loss inasmuch as she had  deposited  the money in the hope of getting a flat, but she is  being  deprived of  that  flat and thereby deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat.  Therefore, the compensation in this case should necessarily have to be higher, as per the decision of this Court.

               26.  For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals and pass the following orders :-

            
i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-complainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.2,67,750/-  from  the date of its respective deposit till the date of realization with further direction to refund the amount of Rs.3,937/- to her, as directed by the Consumer  Forum.

ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant – complainant further sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on their part.

iii)  The respondent is also directed to pay the appellant- complainant  a  sum  of  Rs.20,000/-

towards cost of the litigation incurred by her”.

10.    Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we hereby order  that the OPs would pay Rs.1,34,28,518/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, as per law laid down in the authority reported in “K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board (supra) from the date of payment, till the date of payment of realization of the said amount.  The complainants are also awarded costs of this case.  It must be mentioned here that the complainants reside in Pune.  They have come all the way from Pune to file the complaint before this Commission at Delhi.  They are contesting this case for the last about four years, therefore, we grant them total compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, which will be paid to the complainants within 90 days from today, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 18% p.a., till realization.  All the OPs are saddled with the above said liability jointly and severally.

Stamp Duty on Gift Deed within family

Stamp duty for residential property or for agricultural property will be applicable Rs.200 only if gift deed is within family.

Further 1% registration fee max Rs 30000 and 1% additional charges ( LBT) applicable if property within muncipal limits.

Pl see attached order based on gazet dated 24 April 2015

Awareness of other consumers

Cogratulations to the consumers of Grand Ajnara Heritage scheme located at Noida near New Delhi.

Builder/Developer had given various promises to the flat purchase consumers ( Video door phone, golf course, 24 hrs light, peace of mind etc.)

Builder failed to maintain these promises then also consumers have taken flat possessions and after wards also builder have not fulfilled promises.

Hence flat purchasers collectively printed flex and displayed on their balconies that we have not got what has been promised etc.

Its called Grahak Jagran and we Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat congratulate all these flat purchaser consumers for taking this bold step. So that other consumers will be saved and buassiness of such fraud developers will automatically stopped and such builders will vanish from market.

Now local Govt authority must initiate and take action on these builders.

Consumer is king! JAGO GRAHAK JAGO !!!

Vijay Sagar

President 

Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Pune

For free guidance of all Flat /Society related matters pl contact 

Vijay Sagar .. 9422502315

Vilas Lele ... 7588235664

Seema Bhakre ... 9860368123

Srikant Joshi ...9850059020

Anirudha Jhanwar .. 9637354449

Pension related issues solve by ABGP

विलास लेलेनी पेंन्शन या विषयी महाराष्ट्र शासनास पत्र पाठवुन काही सुचना केल्या होत्या त्या सुचनांचे कौतुक करून महाराष्ट्र शासनाने सर्व सुचना आमलात आणल्या व तसे लेरवी कळवले असुन अता तर 1जानेवारी 2016 पासुन पेंन्शन प्रक्रीया अजून सोपी केली आहे अता निव्रुत्त होणा-या व्यक्तींना हेलपाटे मारावे लागणार नाहीत,त्यांनी कुठलेही फाँर्म भरण्याची आवश्यकता नाही अता त्या व्यक्तींना फक्त पेंन्शनआँर्डर(ppo)घेवुन डायरेक्ट ट्रेझरी आँफीसमधे व्हेरीफिकेषन साठी जायचे आहे. व्हेरीफिकेषन साठी आवश्यक ते सर्व काम वेळेत पूर्ण करून सर्व पेपर्स(फोटो व एन ओ सी सह) निव्रुत्त होणा-या कर्मचा-यांच्या कार्यालयाने आँनलाइन ट्रेझरी आँफीसमधे पाठवणे बंधन कारक केले आहे,त्या मुळे अता निवृत्त होणा-या व्यक्तीस ट्रेझरी आँफीसमधे कोणतेही पेपर्स स्वता: घेवून जाण्याची गरज नाही.अता संबंधीत प्रत्येक रवात्यास पेंन्शनचे काम वेळेत पूर्ण करण्याचे कायदेशीर बंधन आहे,वेळेत काम न करणारे दंडास/शिक्षेस पात्र ठरणार आहते, अता निवृत्त होणा-या व्यक्तीस 10 दिवसात पेंन्शन सुरु होणार आहे. ट्रेझरी आँफीसलाही सर्व माहीती मिळताच 10 दीवसांत पेंन्शन प्रक्रीया पूर्ण करून पेंन्शन सुरु करण्याचे बंधन आहे. ट्रेझरी आँफीसचे सर्वांना अतिशय उत्तम सहकार्य असून तिथे कामास कधीही वेळ लागत नाही. शासनाचा लेरवी तप्शील उपलब्धआहे

विलास लेले,ग्राहक पंचायत,कोषाध्यक्ष म.महाराष्ट्र

*सोबत म टा मधे आलेले पत्र व शासनाचे पत्र आहे ते सर्वानी वाचावे*

Beware of Bhujbal Bros Pune

Bhujbal Bros Complaint ......

Mistry Trails consumers, located at Handewadi, Hadapsar, Pune  gave complaint that they have booked flats in 2012 and possession was suppose to be given on or before Dec 2012 but he has failed to give possession until today.

There are 178 flats and he has collected almost upto 80% amount of flats. Cost of flats is ranging from 26 lakh to 50 lakh.
Most of the banks released 80% amount without verifications and consent of customers.

As on today only 20%  work has been completed. Its shocking.

On 11 Jan 2016 FIR has been registered but further no action from police, his other project site Forest Mist (80 flats) at Handewadi, Hadapsar, Pune has been taken over by Bank of Maharashtra on 30 Jan 2016, as he has failed to repay project loan.

His third project Walay is also located at Handewadi, Hadaspsar, Pune having 40 flats is also incomplete and few consumers approached to Consumer Court.

His another project Watika ( 140 flats ) is incomplete and still consumers have taken possession but compensation cheques are bouncing.

All consumers of Bhujbal Bros construction company are facing serious problems.

For zopadpatti peoples Govt is giving free flats but for consumers who have paid upto 50 lakhs rupees have not been protected by Govt. Approximatly 120 crores rupees collected by builder Bhujbal Bros and consumers are facing serious problems, paying house rent, bank installments, intrest, facing inconvenience, feeling cheated, loosing faith on Govt. and all builders, corporation, news papers etc.

Number of builders are doing such practice. They are utilising these funds to purchase other lands.

As a Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat we demand to conduct CBI inquiry of Bhujabal Brothers Construction Company, Pune and cease all properties and bank account of Bhujbal Brothers, their relatives and friends else these consumers will not get their flats or money back.

Vijay Sagar
President, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Pune

For free guidance pl contact
Vijay Sagar 9422502315
Vilas Lele 7588235664
Srikant Joshi 9850059020
Seema Bhakre 9860368123