While disposing of three separate complaints through one judgment, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed a leading real-estate company to pay a compensation of Rs 9 lakh (Rs 3 lakh each) in all to all three complainants.
The complainants, Kulwant Kaur, resident of Sector 37, Bharti Khanna, resident of Sector 42 and Tejinder Singh, resident of Sector 50 had filed a case in the consumer court as Unitech Ltd had not allotted their flats as promised.
The commission also asked Unitech to refund Rs 25.75 lakh, Rs 27.82 lakh and Rs 23.96 to the three complainants along with Rs 50,000 each as cost of litigation. The orders in the three complaints were pronounced on June 9.
- Mohali: Dreams shattered, hundreds denied possession of flats by Unitech
- Chandigarh Consumer Forum: Real estate firm told to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakh
- Another firm directed to pay Rs two lakh
- Chandigarh: Builders sentenced to three-year imprisonment for not complying with consumer forum orders
- Chandigarh: Builder told to pay fine, refund flat buyers
- Chandigarh: Real estate firm told to refund, pay Rs 3 lakh as fine for failing to allot residential unit on time
Unitech Limited had started a project in the name of Uniworld City in Mohali.
When the three complainants came to know about the project, they booked one residential flat each in Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali.
The total amount to be paid for the flat was between
Rs 25 lakh to Rs 29 lakh, excluding service tax and club membership.
The three complainants stated in three separate complaints that the officials of the company had to provide roads, streetlights, electricity, sewerage connectivity and other facilities within a few months before the completion of the building, at the time of booking.
The company had promised to provide all the facilities within three years from the date of agreement.
The three complainants opted for construction linked payment plan and paid the booking amount of Rs 2 to Rs 3 lakh each in the three separate complaints.
The possession of the said flat was to be given within 36 months, from the date of execution of the agreement that was February 8, 2011 but it has not been given as yet.
Hence, a case was filed in the consumer court on March 4, this year.
The builder in its reply stated that the state commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to pursue the complaint because the said agreement was executed between the parties at New Delhi. It was, further, stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of “consumer” because the complainant is simply an investor, who invested in the said flat for re-sell purposes but she could not resell the said property, due to slump in the real estate market.