‘Giving possession sans completion certificate illegal’

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune news service

Chandigarh, May 19

Highlighting that the possession letter in absence of the completion certificate “is nothing but a paper possession”, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission here has directed Emaar MGF Land Ltd to refund Rs 53,51,386 to a Sector 27 resident.

The commission also directed the developer to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the consumer for “causing mental agony and harassment” and cost of litigation, within a period of 30 days.

Complainant Ruchi Singal approached the commission after Emaar MGF Land Ltd failed to refund Rs 53,51,386 paid by her towards the purchase of a plot in the project named Mohali Hills at Sector 109, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

In her complaint, Singal said she had booked a plot and the provisional allotment was issued in her favour on April 29, 2015.

As per the agreement dated May 8, 2015, the possession of the plot was committed to be delivered within a period of 24 months, i.e., latest by May 7, 2017, she said.

Singal alleged that yet the builder failed to hand over the plot in promised time.

She further said the builder on September 18, 2017 offered the possession letter of the plot, but it was a mere paper possession as the same was issued in the absence of development works, completion certificate and the basic amenities on ground.

Singal said when she raised her grievance, she was given the offer of another plot in Sector 105 or 104, and even that was also not provided to her.

She alleged that even the entry points of the project were found sealed by the Forest Department, as the builder had failed to take necessary approvals from the authorities concerned.

The builder though denied all the allegations.

After hearing both the sides, the commission noted that even the completion certificate in respect of the project in question had not been issued. “Under these circumstances, the possession so offered by the builder to the complainant, is nothing but a paper possession, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law,” it observed.

“Besides the builder has also miserably failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that they have completed the development works and have provided basic amenities at the project site,” the commission said. “It is a settled law that the onus to prove the stage and status of development at the project, is on the builder/developer.”