‘Unfair trade practice’: Consumer panel orders relief to Mohali flat buyer

The complaint was filed by Shilpi Srivastava, who had applied for a flat under the scheme in 2012. She was allotted a unit through a draw held on March 19, 2012, and a Letter of Intent (LoI) issued on May 21, 2012, promised possession within 36 months by May 21, 2015. The flat was priced at nearly Rs 55 lakh.

However, construction was not completed within the stipulated period. On June 28, 2016, GMADA issued an offer of possession on an “as is where is” basis.

According to the complaint, when Srivastava visited the site, several basic facilities were still incomplete. She alleged that she accepted possession on October 7, 2016, fearing cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the deposited amount.

The commission also noted that the project had not obtained mandatory completion and occupation certificates at the time possession was offered. Despite this, maintenance charges and service tax were allegedly being collected from allottees.

GMADA, in its defence, argued that the complaint was barred by limitation and claimed that the buyer had purchased the flat for investment purposes. It also maintained that all promised facilities were provided as per the brochure.

Rejecting the authority’s arguments, the commission observed that offering possession without securing completion certificates was in violation of norms.