KOLKATA: Two brothers who paid Rs 5.75 lakh to book a flat but later found that the developer had sold it to someone else have been awarded Rs 6.8 lakh by a consumer commission.The Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the developer to return the entire booking amount of Rs 5.75 lakh, pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation and another Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.The dispute dates back to November 10, 2020, when the brothers entered into an agreement with the developer to buy a 650-square-foot flat on the first floor of a multi-storey building in Howrah for Rs 10.4 lakh.They paid Rs 5.75 lakh upfront, with possession promised by the end of April 2021.However, the deal did not go as planned. The brothers later learnt that the developer had sold the entire first floor to another buyer through a registered sale deed.They approached the developer repeatedly, seeking either possession of the flat or a refund of their money. After their requests allegedly failed to yield a response, they sent legal notices demanding repayment.The developer disputed their version before the commission. He claimed that the Rs 5.75 lakh was not an advance for the flat but brokerage for introducing him to the owners of another property.He also argued that Rs 2 lakh had already been paid or adjusted during disputes between the brothers, leaving only Rs 3.75 lakh outstanding.In his written response, he further claimed that the brothers had failed to pay the remaining amount within the agreed time, forcing him to sell the flat to another purchaser.The commission, however, found no documentary evidence to support the developer’s claims. He had failed to establish that the brothers defaulted on payment or that Rs 2 lakh had been returned or adjusted.Dismissing the explanation as a concocted story, the commission noted that the developer had admitted receiving Rs 5.75 lakh but could not substantiate his claim of having repaid or adjusted any part of it.It held that selling a flat to another buyer while an agreement with the original purchasers was still in force amounted to both deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
