Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Not delivering plot for 8 years costs builder dear

Ramkrishan Upadhyay Tribune News Service Chandigarh, April 24 Not delivering a plot in a housing project for over eight years has cost a builder dear. Holding the delay as deficiency in service, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 24

Advertisement

Not delivering a plot in a housing project for over eight years has cost a builder dear. Holding the delay as deficiency in service, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed the builder not only to refund the booking amount of Rs2.60 lakh to a consumer but also pay Rs25,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and litigation cost.

While pronouncing the order, the Commission said the consumer could not be made to wait for an indefinite period and the builder, who is not in a position to deliver the possession of the unit as promised, has no right to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant.

Advertisement

Jyoti Bhatia, a resident of Sector 38, approached the commission through counsel Gurjot Singh Sadhrao after the builder, BCL Homes Limited, failed to deliver the plot for over eight years.

Bhatia said she booked a 200 square yard plot on August 8, 2011, in the project Chinar city on the Patiala road, Zirakpur, @ Rs13,000 per sq yd after paying a sum of Rs2.60 lakh as booking amount.

She repeatedly approached the builder regarding the construction of the project and allotment thereafter, but to no avail. Later, it came to her knowledge that no formal approval has been obtained by the builder to carry out the construction at the relevant place. In June 2019, she requested the builder to refund the money. However, the builder refused to refund the money and offered her an investment in other projects.

Alleging that the aforesaid act on part of the opposite party (builder) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, she filed a complaint with the commission. No one from the opposite party (builder) appeared before the commission despite notices.

After hearing the arguments, the Commission found the builder guilty and noted that non-appearance of the builder also shows that they had nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. The Commission directed the builder to refund Rs2.60 lakh to the complainant, along with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation. The Commission also directed the builder to pay Rs15,000 as compensation on account of mental tension and physical harassment and Rs10,000 as litigation expenses.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper