CHENNAI:
“We are coming across complaints against several promoters and builders
indulging in unethical, illegal, improper and irregular practices, motivated
by avarice,” the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has
said.
The Bench
of Justice K. Sampath, president, and member Pon.Gunasekaran said that
while promoting their projects, builders promised the ultimate in comfort,
convenience and aesthetics. Buyers were lured by wild promises and were
happy with the prospect of having a roof of their own, but later they
would realise that they were taken for a ride — plans were not
approved and, even if they were, construction did not comply with the
approved plan; they had been charged for more than the area sold;
the carpet area found in the document included the common area; and
promoters retained an undivided interest on the site.
“It
will be ouite an effort to list all the illegalities and irregularities
indulged in by them,” they said. Builders took undue advantage of
the fact that though each flat owner was an owner of some undivided
interest in the site, the reality was that he could not demand partition
and separate possession of his undivided interest in the land.
“Then
the demolition notices start arriving—promoters hope to thwart their
efficacy by means dubious and foul and invariably succeed in obtaining
revised approved plans or getting the violations condoned, thanks to
the system which is mired in corruption, greasing the palm being the
order of the day and the panacea for all such ills,” the Bench said.
The Commission
was allowing an appeal filed by P.V. Raghupathy and six others, residents
of Rainbow Manor Apartments, Tiruchi Road, Coimbatore. They said the
opposite parties could not have any right to any portion of the entire
land, or in the basement area, after construction was over and possession
handed over to flat owners against full payment. But the company had
converted the basement area into its office room .C.B.S. Property Development
Pvt. Ltd, Coimbatore, and its managing director C.B. Suresh were cited
as opposite parties.
The District
Consumer Disputes RedressaI Forum had dismissed their complaint.
The Commission
said conversion of the basement area meant for car parking as commercial
premises was not permitted even under the alleged revised plan.
“A clear
case of unfair trade practice has been made out,” the Bench said,
while directing the opposite parties to vacate the basement area.
|