Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

Collapse
X
Collapse

Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

Last updated: July 19 2014
185 | Posts
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

    The funniest ad was where i saw some white kids playing in a garden of some project in keshav nagar.

    There was one more in Manjri,this guy had koreans in his banner.

    Comment


    • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

      I saw a hoarding proudly proclaiming "Tallest building in Bavdhan"

      what is so prestigious about it? the hoarding screams it out as if they have built the tallest building in Manhattan!
      sigpic

      Comment


      • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

        one more ad...

        This one is called Callisto and the whole advertisement is a laugh riot from the word go. On the top is a huge proclamation that

        its 3 Side open, No common wall apartment. Next there is a photograph of a firangi girl drawing a curtain and getting surprised to

        see three penguins having a conference in the living room.
        Name is Callisto...members please explain
        1&2 BHK Private Homes....again members please explain
        Nr Pink City, Wakad....the address
        Now here is a list highlighted in a different colour

        Toddlers Pool
        School Bus Stop
        Trellis/Pergola.........again help needed in deciphering this.
        Relaxation Deck
        Meditation Are
        Party Lawn
        Toddlers Play Area
        Senior Citizens Sit Out
        Water Feature

        One thing is good. At least it is made clear that the pool and the play area will only be toddlers size

        It is not a spelling mistake of Meditation Are. It was actually printed in the ad.
        Last edited by amsang; September 27 2010, 05:15 PM.

        Comment


        • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

          I love this thread and so decided to celebrate an occasion on this thread.


          Given below is the announcement
          This is my 500th Post on Indianrealestateforum.

          Limited offer to ppl on this thread: special 50% off for my advice for next 7 days). Avail of this once in a lifetime opportunity. Don't miss the Bus, only limited time slots remaining. (Now do i sound like a builder)

          VK

          Comment


          • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

            A real good , amusing thread.

            Amazed to see the length builders would go,to outdo each other & fool prospective customers.
            Download our Android App! | Please Read IREF Rules | FAQ's

            Comment


            • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

              Offer from Veeemkay

              Originally posted by veeemkay View Post
              I love this thread and so decided to celebrate an occasion on this thread.


              Given below is the announcement
              This is my 500th Post on Indianrealestateforum.

              Limited offer to ppl on this thread: special 50% off for my advice for next 7 days). Avail of this once in a lifetime opportunity. Don't miss the Bus, only limited time slots remaining. (Now do i sound like a builder)

              VK
              Hey Veeemkay,
              Are you really serious about the offer or its just a gimmick

              Comment


              • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

                Originally posted by Dipti View Post
                Hey Veeemkay,
                Are you really serious about the offer or its just a gimmick


                Are you saying that you are willing to pay me for my advice?

                Now that surely sounds like a gimmick.

                VK

                Comment


                • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

                  Where was this thread. Just went thru the whole of it.

                  Since this reminds me of santabanta.com, heres one from me as well-

                  A real estate salesman had just closed his first deal, only to discover that the
                  piece of land he had sold was completely under water.

                  “That customer's going to come back here pretty mad,” he said to his boss. “Should I give him his money back?”

                  “Money back?” roared the boss. “What kind of salesman are you? Get out there and sell him a houseboat, with a fishing rod, a pair of gum boots and some wine.”
                  MM

                  Comment


                  • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

                    MM, that's a good one & quite apt to the thread.


                    Originally posted by Munish Malhautra View Post
                    Where was this thread. Just went thru the whole of it.

                    Since this reminds me of santabanta.com, heres one from me as well-

                    A real estate salesman had just closed his first deal, only to discover that the
                    piece of land he had sold was completely under water.

                    “That customer's going to come back here pretty mad,” he said to his boss. “Should I give him his money back?”

                    “Money back?” roared the boss. “What kind of salesman are you? Get out there and sell him a houseboat, with a fishing rod, a pair of gum boots and some wine.”
                    Download our Android App! | Please Read IREF Rules | FAQ's

                    Comment


                    • Re : Builder Gimmicks – Misleading Property Developers

                      Judgement of consumer court for non registeration of flat by builder

                      ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT PUNE


                      (BEFORE : Mr. Sudhakar K. Binwade : PRESIDENT )
                      Smt. S.A. Bichkar : MEMBER )
                      Smt. S.L. Patankar : MEMBER )

                      *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-**-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
                      Consumer Complaint No. : APDF/85/2010

                      Date of filing : 09-07-2010
                      Date of decision : 21-December-2010

                      Mr. Indra Saini, )
                      B6 Shree Hans Nagar, )
                      Dhanori, Pune – 411 015. )…COMPLAINANT


                      V/s.


                      1. M/s. Universal Developers Through)
                      Through its partner )
                      Col. Vikram Singh Varma, )
                      )
                      2. M/s. Universal Developers Through )
                      Through its partner: )
                      Capt. Momd Hashmi, )
                      )
                      3. M/s. Universal Developers Through )
                      Through its partner : )
                      Shri. Somnath Randive, )
                      Address of all partners :- )
                      Office :- Navnath Sankul, )
                      Survey No. 55/1 + 67/1B, )
                      2/1 & 2 Gokul Nagar, Dhanori Road,
                      Pune – 411 015. )…OPPONENTS

                      Complainant : Advocate Smt. Jayashri Kulkani
                      Opponents : Ex-parte


                      Per : Mrs. Sujata L. Patankar, Member Place : PUNE

                      // JUDGMENT// December 21, 2010


                      The facts giving rise to the present complaint, briefly stated are as follows :-

                      [2] It is the case of the Complainant that the Opponents had proposed to construct building known as “Flying Heights” at S.No. 299, Hissa No.2/2, Village Lohgaon Taluka Haveli, District Pune. Accordingly, the Complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the flat No. 4 on the first floor Wing “D” area 780 sq.ft. with common parking in the said proposed building. It is agreed in between the Complainant and the Opponents that the rate of the flat would be Rs.7,00,000/- towards the cost of the flat and it is also agreed that MSEB Meter and Society Registration charges other expenses to be paid to the Opponent as discussed in addition to the cost of the flat. It is further contention of the Complainant that the Complainant till yet paid the amount of Rs.6,85,000/- to the Opponent and Rs.15,000/- is due and the Complainant is ready to pay such amount of Rs.15,000/-. It is also further contended that on 31/12/2009, the Opponent had given the allotment letter and also assured to register the agreement. The Complainant demanded the Opponent to execute the agreement to sale in his favour but the Opponent demanded extra amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. It is further stated that the Complainant many times went to the office of the Opponent and asked to register the agreement to sale but the Opponent avoided to register the agreement to sale. Hence the Complainant filed such complaint. According to the Complainant, he is ready to give the rest of the outstanding amount. But the Opponent is trying to extract the extra money from the Complainant, which is illegal and also avoids to handover the possession by executing the agreement to sale. According to the Complainant, the cause of action arose on 28/2/2010 when the Complainant had given the written notice and asked to register the agreement to sale.

                      On all these grounds and as stated in the complaint application, the Complainant has prayed as follows :-

                      The Hon’ble Forum may please be order to execute the agreement to sale in favour of the Complainant and to handover the vacant possession of the said flat the Complainant.
                      Order may be passed against the Opponent to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for the compensation.
                      Other just and proper order may be passed.

                      [3] Alongwith the complaint application supported with affidavit, the Complainant has annexed the relevant documents, such as, receipts, allotment letter, reminder etc. in support of his contentions.

                      [4] This Forum issued notice to the Opponents R/on 23/8/2010. The notice sent to the Opponents Nos.1 & 2 are returned unserved with the postal remarks “Not Claimed. As also, the Opponent No.3 is duly served with the notice, however, all the parties never appeared before this Forum nor filed their written statements. Therefore, after ample opportunities, this Forum passed ex-parte order on 12/11/2010 against all the Opponents.

                      [5] We have gone through the entire proceedings, pleadings on the record. We have also heard the oral submissions of the Advocate for the Complainant. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following points arose for our consideration.

                      POINTSANSWERS
                      {1} Whether there is any deficiency
                      in service on the part of the
                      Opponents? … Yes.
                      {2} What order ? … As per final order.

                      : REASONS :


                      [6] In the present case, admittedly, there is no registered agreement in between the parties. However the Complainant and the Opponents are bound by virtue of receipts and allotment letter dtd.31/12/2009. The evidence putforth before us by way of receipts at Exh.2/6 to Exh.2/12 issued by the Opponent transpire that the Complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 6,85,000/-, as stated in the complaint application. The particulars of which are as follows :-

                      Sr.No.
                      Cash/cheque
                      Date of receipt
                      Amount
                      1.
                      Cheque
                      24/01/2007
                      Rs. 25,000/-
                      2.
                      Cash
                      21/12/2007
                      Rs. 50,000/-
                      3.
                      Cheque
                      07/04/2008
                      Rs. 75,000/-
                      4.
                      Cash
                      06/06/2008
                      Rs. 50,000/-
                      5.
                      Cheque
                      04/07/2008
                      Rs.2,85,000/-
                      6.
                      Cash
                      04/07/2008
                      Rs.1,00,000/-
                      7.
                      Cash
                      10/12/2009
                      Rs.1,00,000/-

                      TOTAL ………..

                      Rs.6,85,000/-



                      [7] In support of the contention, secondly, the Complainant filed allotment letter dtd. 31/12/2009 (Exh.2/1), which is given by the Opponent. In this allotment letter, it is stated as follows :-

                      “ This is to confirm that we have sold Flat No. D-04 Admeasuring 780 sq.ft. (built up area) alongwith balcony on 1st Floor in the building called “Flying Height” situated at S.No. 299/2/29 (part) Lohegaon, Pune -411 032, to you for a total consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- (Seven Lacs Only) including MSEB, Stamp Duty, Registration Fee, Society Formation & all other charges”.
                      This itself reveals that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- includes MSEB, Stamp Duty, Registration Fee, Society Formation & all other charges. Therefore, relying on this document, we opined that the total consideration of the flat is Rs.7,00,000/- only. As stated earlier, the Complainant has filed receipts at Exh.2/6 to Exh.2/12, by which it proves that the Complainant has paid substantial amount i.e. amount of Rs.6,85,000/- to the Opponents. As against this, neither the Opponents appeared before this Forum nor filed written statement to substantiate their contentions. Therefore the uncontroverted statements made by the Complainant on affidavit are required to be relied and acted upon. In the complaint application, it is also crystal clear that there is no agreement executed between the parties. However, the Complainant has stated that he is ready to pay the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Opponents. Again, turning to the allotment letter dtd. 31-12-2009 (Exh.2/1), it is stated by the Opponent as follows :-
                      “We confirm that we shall handover the possession of said
                      flat to you within 08 months(i.e. maximum by 28th Aug.2010).
                      In case delay in possession of said flat we shall be liable to
                      pay the interest 9% per annum for the entire amount you
                      have paid for the delayed period”.

                      [8] This is another cogent evidence by which, the Opponents themselves made some assurances and failed to do so. Besides, by documentary evidence it is clear that even though the Complainant has paid substantial amount to the Opponents, still the Opponents neither executed the agreement nor handover the possession of the flat, this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. On 10-12-2010, the Complainant has filed purshis (Exh.9) stating therein that the prayer against the Opponents regarding the possession of the flat No.D-4 ‘Flying Height’, No. 299/2/29, Lohgaon, Pune – 38 may be deleted. Therefore now the prayer of the Complainant is restricted only to the execution of the registered agreement to sale As also, on the same day, the Complainant also filed affidavit (Exh.8), contending therein that the Opponents have not made any registered agreement with any third person. Therefore taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, and more particularly relying on the affidavit of the Complainant dtd.10-12-2010 (Exh.8), in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to direct the Complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Opponents and the Opponents in turn would execute the registered agreement to sale in favour of the Complainant.

                      Comment

                      Have any questions or thoughts about this?
                      Working...
                      X