Team Herald

PANJIM: The Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (GSCDRC) dismissed preliminary objection filed by a builder against a complainant, who was seeking refund of his money paid to buy a row house.

In August 2018, the builder/developer M/s Expat Projects and Development Private Limited, had failed and neglected to grant possession of a row house to the complainants -Wynne Fernandes and Inacio Joao Fernandes and inspite of several attempts made by them, the developer gave evasive answers to them regarding construction and completion of the unit expeditiously.

The developer further cited delay in completing the project due to Covid-19 pandemic and the complainants were left frustrated and devastated over the delay in handing over possession of a new unit after having paid almost the total consideration of Rs 65 lakh.

The complainants had also found external walls of the said unit developed cracks and the appearance of the building was more than 15 years. Fernandes later sent a legal notice to the developer to hand the unit as per the agreement. But the developer failed to reply to the notice and instead sent an acknowledgment email to the complainant.

Since the developer failed to complete the unit for a considerable span of time i.e. for over five years, the complainant approached the Commission, for reliefs.

The developer argued that the complainants were not consumers under the definition of consumer and that Inacio Joao Fernandes had no locus to be part of the proceedings as he had no privity of contract.

The developer claimed that the whole transaction was hit by prohibition under Benami Transaction Act as all payments were made by Inacio Joao Fernandes. He also disputed that the amount was not received by the developer for the said project.

However, Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Officiating President Varsha R Bale and Member Adv Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves held that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(5)(vii) of Consumer Protection Act.

“The Consumer Court cannot be called upon to adjudicate whether if the property is Benami or not. Also one cannot pre-suppose that the property is Benami property. The developer has not disputed the fact that the said property is benami. On that count, the application for maintainability cannot be entertained,” the Commission stated.

Adv Bruce Fernandes argued on behalf of the complainants and Adv Pritesh Shetty represented M/s Expat Projects and Development Private Limited.

UC Nerul advance