New Delhi: Builders "dominate" the consumers and their projects are seldom delivered on time, a Delhi court has observed while directing the police to register a case against a real estate company.
The order came on a petition filed by a Ghaziabad-based man who had challenged a magisterial court's November 2014 order dismissing his plea seeking lodging of FIR against the company, BPTP, for alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under the IPC.
Special CBI Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna allowed the revision petition filed by Mithun Aggarwal and directed the station house officer (SHO) of Connaught Place Police Station to lodge a case on the basis of the complaint and conduct a probe.
"It is a matter of common knowledge that builders are dominating the consumers. The projects floated by the builders are seldom delivered on time despite the fact that interest at higher rate is charged from consumers for delay and minimal interest is payable by the builder for his own delay," the judge observed.
In his plea filed before the magisterial court, Aggarwal had alleged that in response to BPTP's advertisement, he had applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 350 square meters in Parklands, Faridabad and paid Rs 22.38 lakh as cost of the plot.
He claimed that in May 2008, he was intimated about the changes and the allotment of an alternate plot measuring 302 square meters without his consent. After this, he called upon the firm to give him an option to select a plot measuring 350 square meters.
Aggarwal alleged that he also filed a complaint before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where a settlement was arrived at, as per which a plot measuring 335 square yards was agreed to be given on further payment of Rs 22.23 lakh.
He claimed that he further paid Rs 22.23 lakh but the real estate firm failed to perform its part of obligation and when he visited the project site in December 2013, he found there was no demarcation of the plot and no development work.
During the hearing on the revision petition, the counsel representing BPTP argued that proceedings were pending before the state consumer commission and in the execution, Aggarwal has agreed to accept a plot.
The sessions court, while setting aside the magisterial court's order, observed that the execution proceedings pending before the consumer commission were different in nature and do not address the complainant's grievance raised in the matter.