Firm fined for failing to deliver commercial unit

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 12

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited to pay a compensation of Rs50,000 to a Mani Majra resident after it failed to deliver the possession of a commercial booth in a project, Golf Links-1, Sector 114, in Mohali.

Commission president Justice Raj Shekhar Attri also directed the real estate firm to refund Rs15,93,873 to the complainant, along with 12 per cent interest per annum, from the respective dates of deposit onwards.

Rachit Kaushal, counsel for Dhanveer Singh, a resident of Rajeev Vihar, Mani Majra, said his client had booked a commercial booth in a project, “Golf Links-1”, Sector 114 in Mohali. The total cost of the unit was fixed at Rs15,83,175 and the allotment letter/agreement was executed between the client and the opposite party on November 12, 2010.

He said though the entire amount was paid by November 12, 2011, the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the unit within a stipulated period of three years. On August 8, 2019, the opposite party offered the possession of the unit in question, but it was merely a formality. It also offered a compensation of Rs1,09,779 to the complainant for the delay in the possession. On August 14, his client challenged the email of the opposite party by asking them to compensate him on equitable grounds, but to no avail.

The counsel for the opposite party said the complainant had concealed material facts from the commission. The complainant was already running an electronics shop in Panchkula and he had not clarified as to for what purpose he had purchased the unit in question. No timeframe was mentioned in the allotment letter to deliver the possession of the unit in question.

The commission observed: “A person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of units allotted to them. They are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of three years would have been reasonable for the completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by the last quarter of 2014….”