Builder told to refund Rs 50L, pay relief to consumer

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 15

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, has directed a builder to refund Rs 50,10,000 to a consumer for not handing over a villa in the fixed time.

The Commission also directed the builder to pay a compensation of Rs1,35,000 to the consumer for causing mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.

Navpreet Kaur Boparai, a resident of Mohali, approached the Commission alleging that the builder failed to deliver the possession of the villa in a project launched under the name of “Court Yard”, TDI City, Sector 110-111, Mohali, Punjab, in the promised time.

Navpreet alleged that she signed a buyer’s agreement in year 2012 with the builder for the purchase of the villa. In the agreement, the builder promised to deliver the villa within a period of 24 months i.e. latest by February 14, 2014.

She said after paying a substantial amount, the possession of the unit was not offered in the promised date. She contacted the builder several times, but to no avail. She alleged that the project was launched without obtaining necessary permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities.

The builder denied all allegations and said out of the total sale consideration of Rs59,28,400, the complainant paid only Rs50,10,000. As a result, the construction of the unit could not be completed.

After hearing the arguments, the commission, comprising president Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, and members Padma Pandey and Rajesh K. Arya, held the builder guilty of deficiency in service and directed to refund Rs50,10,000 to the complainant with 12 per cent interest.

It directed the builder to pay a compensation of Rs1,35,000 for causing mental agony and harassment, deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation.

The Commission also said it was well settled law that non-delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project in the promised date was a material violation on part of a builder. In those circumstances, the purchaser was well within his/her right to seek refund of the amount paid.