Latest news with #IVAddlDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Business
- Time of India
Long wait! 70-year-old files plaint over 9-year delay for 1BHK Bengaluru flat, wins Rs 8 lakh refund
BENGALURU: The IV Addl District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, with 18% interest, to a Marathahalli resident here, who waited for nine years for possession of a flat that BDA had promised to deliver in a year's time. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On March 21, 2025, the Commission ordered BDA to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, along with an interest of 18% from the date the first payment was made, Rs 1 lakh for service deficiency, Rs 25,000 for mental agony, and another Rs 10,000 in litigation costs. The complainant, Suryaprakash H R, 70, had booked a 1BHK flat at Gunjur village under the housing scheme for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) on March 7, 2014, making an initial payment of Rs 1.12 lakh. According to Suryaprakash, BDA had allotted him a 1BHK flat in Gunjur through draw of lots, and on December 3, 2014, he was told to pay the remaining amount of Rs 7.87 lakh within six months. To fulfil this, Suryaprakash took out a housing loan of Rs 8 lakh, which was released to BDA in four instalments. However, thereafter, BDA neither issued a firm date for registration, nor did it respond to the complainant's repeated inquiries. Worse still, the allotment-related file could not be traced at the BDA office by its officials. Construction halted midway When Suryaprakash visited the project site in 2016, he found only the first and second floors had been built, with no further progress. On December 22, 2016, he wrote to the chief minister, who in turn directed the BDA commissioner to act. A letter from BDA's chief engineer confirmed that construction had been entrusted to Deepak Cable India Ltd., Tired of too many ads? go ad free now but due to non-completion, the contract was cancelled and re-tendered. As the delays dragged on, Suryaprakash and other EWS allottees staged a hunger strike in front of the Gunjur BDA project. On January 5, 2019, they submitted a joint representation to BDA and again approached the CM on June 15, 2019. The CMO yet again forwarded the complaint to the BDA commissioner, but work remained incomplete. Frustrated with his runs from pillar to post, on Jan 28, 2023, Suryaprakash issued a legal notice to BDA, followed by a representation to the deputy CM on October 26, 2023. The BDA deputy secretary replied on April 3, 2024, acknowledging receipt of Rs 4.73 lakh, but alleging that Rs 3.13 lakh was due. Suryaprakash countered the claim, saying he had already paid 95% of the sale amount. On June 13, 2024, he finally filed a consumer complaint, seeking a full refund. Unjustified act The BDA's legal counsel contested the claim, saying Rs 1.16 lakh was still due, and that possession was withheld because of that. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the elderly complainant was a valid allottee who had paid 95% of the flat cost by August 2015. Rejecting BDA's claim that possession was withheld due to the pending amount, the consumer court observed that it did not justify the delay, and ruled that BDA had failed to provide proper civic amenities, parking facility, and sanitary connections at the Gunjur project, making the residential units uninhabitable.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Consumer court orders BDA to refund Rs 8 lakh for delay in handing over flat
Bengaluru: The IV Addl District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, with 18% interest, to a Marathahalli resident here, who waited for nine years for possession of a flat that BDA had promised to deliver in a year's time. On March 21, 2025, the Commission ordered BDA to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, along with an interest of 18% from the date the first payment was made, Rs 1 lakh for service deficiency, Rs 25,000 for mental agony, and another Rs 10,000 in litigation costs. The complainant, Suryaprakash H R, 70, had booked a 1BHK flat at Gunjur village under the housing scheme for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) on March 7, 2014, making an initial payment of Rs 1.12 lakh. According to Suryaprakash, BDA had allotted him a 1BHK flat in Gunjur through draw of lots, and On December 3, 2014, he was told to pay the remaining amount of Rs 7.87 lakh within six months. To fulfil this, Suryaprakash took out a housing loan of Rs 8 lakh, which was released to BDA in four instalments. However, thereafter, BDA neither issued a firm date for registration, nor did it respond to the complainant's repeated inquiries. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 임플란트, 지금 시작하세요 [자세히 보기] 임플란트 더 알아보기 Undo Worse still, the allotment-related file could not be traced at the BDA office by its officials. Construction halted midway When Suryaprakash visited the project site in 2016, he found only the first and second floors had been built, with no further progress. On December 22, 2016, he wrote to the chief minister, who in turn directed the BDA commissioner to act. A letter from BDA's chief engineer confirmed that construction had been entrusted to Deepak Cable India Ltd., but due to non-completion, the contract was cancelled and re-tendered. As the delays dragged on, Suryaprakash and other EWS allottees staged a hunger strike in front of the Gunjur BDA project. On January 5, 2019, they submitted a joint representation to BDA and again approached the CM on June 15, 2019. The CMO yet again forwarded the complaint to the BDA commissioner, but work remained incomplete. Frustrated with his runs from pillar to post, on Jan 28, 2023, Suryaprakash issued a legal notice to BDA, followed by a representation to the deputy CM on October 26, 2023. The BDA deputy secretary replied on April 3, 2024, acknowledging receipt of Rs 4.73 lakh, but alleging that Rs 3.13 lakh was due. Suryaprakash countered the claim, saying he had already paid 95% of the sale amount. On June 13, 2024, he finally filed a consumer complaint, seeking a full refund. Unjustified act The BDA's legal counsel contested the claim, saying Rs 1.16 lakh was still due, and that possession was withheld because of that. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the elderly complainant was a valid allottee who had paid 95% of the flat cost by August 2015. Rejecting BDA's claim that possession was withheld due to the pending amount, the consumer court observed that it did not justify the delay, and ruled that BDA had failed to provide proper civic amenities, parking facility, and sanitary connections at the Gunjur project, making the residential units uninhabitable.
