- Asian Games 2018 Day 3 Shooting Live scores Live streaming: Gold for Saurabh Chaudhury, bronze for Abhishek Verma in Men's 50m Air Pistol
- Asian Games 2018 Day 3 Live updates Live streaming: Gold and bronze for India in Men's 50m Air Pistol
- It is work and play for Salman Khan on the sets of Bharat in Malta
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a real estate company to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation to a New Delhi resident for failing to allot a residential unit on time.
Pronouncing the orders on June 13, the commission directed Unitech to refund Rs 52.55 lakh with an interest of 15 per cent per annum to the complainant, Ramneet Bhangal.
In his complaint filed on March 21, Bhangal stated that she booked an independent floor in the builder’s project in Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali. She was allotted a three-bedroom flat (executive floors) in the said project for Rs 52.89 lakh with an allotment letter dated November 25, 2011.
The agreement was executed between the builder and the complainant on January 9, 2012. The possession of the said unit was to be delivered before January 8, 2013. In total, Bhangal she paid Rs 52.55 lakh to the builder.
She also took a loan of Rs 42.31 lakh from the HDFC bank in Chandigarh.
- Chandigrah Builder told to pay compensation
- Chandigarh Consumer Forum: Real estate firm told to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakh
- Another firm directed to pay Rs two lakh
- Chandigarh: Builder told to pay fine, refund flat buyers
- Chandigarh: Plot not alloted, builder told to pay Rs 2 lakh fine
- Possession of flats delayed: Real estate company told to refund, compensate three complainants
When the said unit was not allotted to Bhangal by January 8, 2013, she visited the site on January 19 and found that no construction work was going on at Sector 97 in Mohali.
Thereafter, she filed a case in the consumer court.
The builder, in its reply, stated that the commission had no territorial jurisdiction, as the company’s office is in Gurgaon.
However, the builder accepted that a unit was booked by the complainant at its upcoming project and stated that it was facing problems in getting an electricity connection.
The commission said, “Till where forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not the case where the builder was ready with possession of the constructed unit, to be delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date that is January 8., 2013, but it was the complainant who wanted to rescind the contract, on account of financial constraints or for any personal reason, and is seeking refund of the amount deposited.”