HYDERABAD: As many as 39 buyers who approached the consumer forum against Sahiti Infratec Ventures India (P) Ltd have received relief in the last couple of months as the forum has directed the firm to refund the sale consideration amount to each of them for flats in Ameenpur project. The firm has to refund around Rs 12 crore to all these complainants.
Apart from the refund, 38 complainants were awarded Rs 50,000 each as compensation while one consumer was given Rs 25,000. In many of these cases, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III directed the firm to deposit Rs 10,000 towards punitive damages in the Consumer Legal Aid account. The firm is alleged to have collected around Rs 250 crore from buyers for various projects, including the one in Ameenpur.
The complainants had paid anywhere between Rs 9 lakh and Rs 44 lakh for a flat in the complex to be constructed in Ameenpur village. However, the firm failed to get the required permission, start construction, and register sale deeds in the names of the complainants.
“The firm had promised to get all required permissions by Dec 2021 but failed to do so. When they did not comply with the terms of the MoUs, we had demanded refund with interest and incidental charges through a legal notice, but received no response,” said Phanindra Babu P who was awarded a refund of Rs 43.6 lakh by the forum.
Another complainant, Lakshmi G, said that after the construction firm flouted the contractual obligation, she decided to opt out of the contract by sending a legal notice and demanding a refund along with compensation.
“When the firm remained silent even after receiving the legal notice, we approached the forum,” she added.
Sahiti Infratec, in its written version in one of these cases, denied that the complainants paid the amount for purchasing the flat. It contended that the money was paid towards cost of the land. They further claimed that no development agreement in their favour had been executed to take up construction. They also submitted that several cases had been filed against them, bank accounts frozen and relevant documents seized.
“As such we were unable to complete the construction and register sale deed in the name of consumers,” the firm said.
The forum, while awarding the refund, noted that orders were for seizure of immovable properties only and said: “The opposite party (firm) has evidently breached the contractual obligations by neglecting to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.”
