Forum upholds order against builder for failing to deliver possession of plot
- Gurdaspur terror attack ends, all three terrorists killed
- Former president Abdul Kalam passes away following sudden illness
- Will not strike first, but will give a befitting reply: Rajnath Singh
- LG Najeeb Jung clears Swati Maliwal's appointment as DCW chief
- Gurdaspur attack aftermath: BCCI says no cricket ties with Pakistan as of now
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an earlier order of the UT District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum against Emaar MGF Land Limited for failing to deliver the possession of a plot to the complainant in Mohali, and not developing the area as per the agreement.
As per the earlier order, the company was directed to refund the total amount of Rs 14,92,575 to the complainant with interest of 9 per cent per annum and penalised with Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and an additional Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.
The complainant, Ajay Bansal, a resident of Delhi, purchased a flat at 'The Views' that was to be built in Mohali by the developers. An Apartment Buyers' Agreement was signed between the parties through which the developers were bound to handover the possession of the apartment within 36 months from the date of allotment, that was by end of February 2011, but the complainant alleged that the construction work had not even started by that time.
It was further stated that when the complainant approached the developers, the copies of licence to start construction, approval by the corporation with regard to water and electricity connections and NOC from the Pollution Control Board were not shown to the complainant. The complainant, then, requested a refund Rs 14,92,575 deposited by him till that time, which allegedly was not given to him.
In its written reply, the company agreed on the execution of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement between the parties, and the promise to deliver the possession by the end of February 2011. It was, however, stated that the construction of the tower, in which the apartment was allotted to the complainant, could not be started and hence the instalment due was not demanded from the complainant. The company, further, offered to relocate the apartment of the complainant.