Chandigarh, November 3
Coming down heavily on Delhi-based realtors, Uppal’s Marble Arch, the UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the firm to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to a Panchkula couple for its failure to hand over the possession of an apartment at Mani Majra.
Coming down heavily on Delhi-based realtors, Uppal’s Marble Arch, the UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the firm to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to a Panchkula couple for its failure to hand over the possession of an apartment at Mani Majra.
The commission, comprising Justice Sham Sunder, and member Neena Sandhu, also directed the opposite party to pay 12 per cent interest per annum on the already deposited amount of Rs 1,42,25,700, from April 1, 2009 till the actual date of handing over of the physical possession of the apartment to the complainant. The respondents have also been directed to pay Rs 5,000 towards the costs of litigation.
The complainants - Pawan Kumar Goel and his wife Anju Goel - submitted that they had jointly applied for the allotment of a residential apartment on November 17, 2006 in the project launched by the opposite party and deposited an amount of Rs 16,92,750 with the application form.
The opposite party issued the allotment letter on November 23, 2006 and further assured that the possession of the apartment would be handed over to the allottees on or before 30 months from the date of start of construction of the residential complex.
It was further stated that the construction had already started at the time of the execution of the agreement and later the opposite party requested the complainants to deposit the remaining amount. The complainants deposited Rs 1,42,25,700 as per schedule. However, the possession of the residential apartment was not handed over to the complainants within time.
The counsel for the opposite party averred that the delay occurred on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party and as per the agreement, they were entitled to extension of time for the delivery of physical possession of the apartment.
It was further stated that the physical possession was given to the complainants after the delay of 13 months from the date committed for the delivery of the same. Yet the delay occurred on account of circumstances beyond their control.
It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency in rendering services on their part, nor had they indulged in any unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, issued the completion/occupation certificate on May 31, 2010.
He further submitted that since, there was a delay in issuing the completion/occupation certificate by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh, even though the opposite party had applied for the same in time, the latter could not be blamed.
The state commission observed: “It’s a matter of common knowledge that the builders in the first instance issue attractive and fanciful advertisements to attract gullible investors/purchasers and receive enormous amount from them.
Thereafter, they do not stick to the schedule of construction. They (respondents) were required to apply for the completion/occupation certificate much before the date committed for the delivery of physical possession. If, on account of their own wrong, they did not apply for the same or they could not apply for the same, as the project had not been completed by the date committed, the complainants could not be blamed for the same.”
