GMADA told to pay Rs 52.65-lakh relief

Ishrat S Banwait

Tribune News Service

Mohali, June 17

For delivering incomplete and poor quality apartments, the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) has been penalised by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. Deciding a complaint filed by an Abohar resident, GMADA has been asked to pay Rs 52.65 lakh.

As per Veena Garg’s complaint, GMADA advertised their project ‘Purab Premium Apartments’ at Mohali on December 12, 2011. The complainant applied for Type 2 apartment under the category for disabled persons. A sum of Rs 5.50 lakh was also paid along with the applciation. In the draw of lots, the flat was allotted to Garg and a Letter of Intent (LOI) was also issued.

As per the terms and conditions of the brochure and LOI, ownership and possession of the flat was to be given after 36 months, says the complaint. As per the payment schedule, payment of Rs 10.17 lakh being 20 per cent price of the apartment was paid by her on June 21, 2012. A sum of Rs 32.26 lakh i.e. 65 per cent of the tentative price was paid on July 20, 2012, with a rebate of 5 per cent on the balance amount.

The complaint said the authority orally asked her to deposit an amount of Rs 1.90 lakh as service tax and interest, whereas in the brochure, there were no terms and conditions to deposit any service tax or interest. On July 12, 2016, Garg was issued allotment letter and offer of possession.

However, in the allotment letter, she was offered a flat with a covered area of 1353.56 sq ft whereas in the brochure, its area was mentioned as 1,366 sq ft. Other changes without informing her and a changed layout plan irked Garg. She also mentioned that the project was still under construction and the boundary wall was low and safe. Not only this, poor quality construction material had been used.

GMADA in its reply said refund without multiple deductions was not possible as per terms and conditions of the LOI. It added that ‘necessary development’ had already been carried out at the site and provided all ‘basic and other required amenities’.

The commission observed that the possession was offered more than a year late, which amounts to deficiency in service. It also pointed out that the LOI itself reads, “they (GMADA) will deliver the possession of the apartment, after completion of the development work at the site.” However the same was not done and the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the scheme and seek refund.

GMADA was, thus, directed to refund Rs 52.44 lakh and pay Rs 21,000 as litigation costs.

What the order says

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the possession was offered over a year late, which amounts to deficiency in service. It also pointed out that the LOI itself reads, “they (GMADA) will deliver the possession of the apartment, after completion of development work at site.” However the same was not done and the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the scheme and seek refund.