ALFREDO M. COTTA AND ASSOCIATES

Introduction

Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates is a builder operating in the real estate market of Goa. While they have taken on several projects, a closer examination of their performance reveals a mix of customer satisfaction reviews and legal challenges. In this blog post, we will dissect the key details of their legal performance, common patterns in their cases, and offer tips for potential buyers considering investing in properties managed by them.

Builder Profile

• Name: Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates
• States with Projects: Goa
• Number of Complaints: 2
• Cases Won: 0
• Cases Lost: 2

Legal Case Details

Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates has found itself on the losing side of legal disputes related to apartment possession. Below is a summary of two cases where the builder has been implicated:

Case Summaries

1. Appellant Claim: The complainants argued that despite fulfilling their financial obligations by completing full payment, they had not received possession of their apartments nor the required documents and certificates.
   • Respondent Claim: The builder countered that the apartments were ready for occupation and that the complainants had not settled the full amounts due.
   • Final Verdict: The Authority mandated that the builder deliver the apartments to the complainants within five months and allowed interest on the delayed possession at the rate of 10.85% per annum.
2. Appellant Claim: Similar to the first case, the complainants alleged that they had not received possession or necessary documentation for their apartments despite full payment.
   • Respondent Claim: The builder maintained that the apartments were ready for occupancy and payment shortfalls on the complainants' part were the cause of delays.
   • Final Verdict: As before, the Authority ordered the builder to deliver possession within five months and added an interest penalty for the delay.

Analysis of Legal Performance

Patterns in Lost Cases

• Recurrent Claims: The predominant theme in both cases is the failure to deliver possession of apartments despite full payment being received. This suggests significant operational issues within the builder's project management or customer service processes.
• Legal Outcomes: The Authority ruling in favor of the complainants indicates a lack of sufficient documentation or proof from the builder's side to validate their claims regarding payment disputes.

Patterns in Won Cases

Interestingly, there are no cases that the builder has won based on the received information. All recorded interactions resulted in losses for Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In the review of Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates' legal endeavors, a troubling pattern emerges regarding their ability to fulfill contractual obligations to clients. The fact that they have lost both cases, with final verdicts directing them to rectify issues, raises concerns for potential buyers.

Overall Assessment

Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates appears to have a struggle with project delivery and customer satisfaction, as suggested by their legal history. For potential buyers, this presents a risk, as delays and contractual discrepancies may emerge post-purchase.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Research Thoroughly: Look into customer reviews or feedback on previous projects completed by Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates to gauge overall satisfaction.
2. Legal Documentation: Ensure that all agreements are well-documented and that you understand your rights regarding possession and payment terms before committing.
3. Seek Professional Advice: Consulting with a real estate attorney can provide insights and help protect your interests, especially given the builder's legal history.

General Tips for Selecting Any Builder

• Check References: Always ask for and verify references from past clients.
• Investigate Legal History: Understand the builder’s legal standing and check for any negative reviews or complaints filed against them.
• Consider Financial Stability: Builders with a strong financial background are often more reliable in completing projects on time.

By keeping these points in mind, you can make an informed decision when dealing with builders, especially with those who have encountered legal challenges in the past like Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates.

Analysis of the cases filed against the builder Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates, which it lost, revealed significant insights into its dealings with clients. The cases primarily revolve around two key themes: delayed possession claims and disputes over payment and documentation.

The majority of the cases fall under the category of delayed possession claims. In these cases, the complainants alleged that they had made full payments for their apartments, yet the builder failed to deliver possession or provide necessary documents and certificates. The builder's defense consistently claimed that the apartments were ready for occupation and that full payment had not been received, indicating a fundamental communication breakdown or mismanagement of expectations.

A common reason for litigation in these cases was the builder's inability to fulfill contractual obligations, particularly concerning timely delivery and complete documentation. Complainants likely felt aggrieved as they had fulfilled their part of the agreement, and the builder's failure to deliver led to legitimate claims of delay and non-compliance.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to a lack of credible evidence supporting their claims. The authority found that the builder had indeed received full payments and failed to act accordingly, which resulted in legal consequences. The decision mandated the builder to deliver possession within a specified timeframe and to pay interest on the delay, highlighting a pattern where insufficient adherence to regulatory requirements and timelines led to legal defeats.

In summary, the cases against Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates reflect a troubling trend in which clients are left waiting for homes they have paid for, and the builder's continued defense of its actions suggests a systemic issue that may indicate a lack of customer-centric practices. Buyers evaluating this builder should take these legal outcomes into account when contemplating a purchase.