THE STATE Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a real estate firm to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a resident of Sector 33 for deficiency in service.
The commission also asked the firm, BCL Homes, to refund Rs 51.54 lakh along with Rs 30,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.
The complainant, Kiranjeet Sandhu, said in her complaint that she had booked a three-bedroom flat in a group housing project called ‘Chinar Homes’, Kishanpura, Zirakpur.
- Panchkula: Forum orders immigration firm to refund Rs 1.74L and $5700, fines Rs 50,000
- Chandigarh consumer forum: Real estate firm told to give compensation of Rs 1 lakh for failing to allot plot on time
- Punjab consumer forum to realtor: Pay Rs 4.5 Lakhs to 3 complainants
- For not handing over flat on time, realty firm penalised Rs 2.50 lakh
- Flat delivery failure: Ansal to pay Rs 14L
- Housing firm dodges Rs 50,000 relief,ends up paying Rs 4.5L
The complainant paid the entire amount to the firm and was given an allotment letter issued on April, 2012. As per the agreement, the firm was supposed to provide all internal services, within the peripheral limits of the complex, which includes laying of roads, water lines, electric lines, sewer lines etc. It was further assured that other services and facilities, as mentioned in the brochure were also to be provided before handing over actual physical possession of the unit to the complainant.
The possession of the said flat was to be given to the complainant within a period of 18-24 months, with a grace period of three months, from the date of issuance of the allotment letter after providing all the basic amenities.
Kiranjeet Sandhu said in the complaint that if the builder company failed to deliver possession of the unit, by the said date, it was liable to make payment of Rs 10,000 per month to the complainant as rent for the period of delay.
The firm was supposed to hand over the possession of the flat by July 19, 2014, however, neither possession was given nor compensation paid.
When the possession of the said unit was not offered, the complainant visited the project site in 2014 and was shocked to see that there was no development at all.
In its reply, the builder company raised technical objections, saying the commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer’s complaint. The company said the delay in construction of the unit was caused due to forced non-availability of sand and other building material, on account of a stay order by the Supreme Court.