Ashok Tower D Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v.

Peninsula Land Limited

Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2015
1. Since members of complaint purchased the flats and availed the housing services from
opposite party, for a valuable consideration, they will be covered under s.2(d) of
CPA,1986.
2. Opposite party has to form a society within 4 months with minimum no. of 10 members
who have purchased the apartments or 60% of the flats same have been sold, under s.20
of MOFA read with Rule 8 of the MOFA Rules. No efforts were made on opposite
partys part to form a society which led complainant to form an association.
3. The opposite party provided deficient services to its customers by taking a sum of
2500rs/- towards the formation of the society but did not take any step towards it. The
party returned only a sum of 600rs to each purchaser.
4. The opposite party failed to convey the leasehold plot along with Tower D in favor of
complainant, which was guaranteed under clause 18 of the sale agreement. Section of 11
of MOFA also has provision for the same casting a contractual duty on the part of
opposite party.(BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. SYNDICATE
BANK & Vidhi Builders pvt ltd v. arenbee media consultant ltd.)
5. The opp.party failed to disclose pertinent facts relating to the alleged commercial
construction without consent of complainant society, which misled the complainant.
6. The opposite party constructed slabs in breach of s.7 of MOFA at 48th floor of Tower D
and the party has not taken any step to regularize the unauthorized alterations.
7. The opposite party sold terraces and swimming pools to pent house owners which were
shown by the party to be free of FSI and was included in common areas.(jayanti lal
investment v. madhvihar coop soc)
8. The Opp. Party has not yet refunded the amount received towards the CAM advance to
complainants society.
9. Also, the opposite party used sub standard construction material against what was shown
in the brochure because of which the complainant has spent hug sum on the same. This
would surely amount to unfair trade practices( LDA v. M K Gupta)