TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Ansal Properties instructed to refund Rs1.19 cr to six investors

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Mohali, February 3

Advertisement

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh has directed Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited to refund Rs1.19 crore along with 12 per cent interest to six complainants, who had booked three units in its Mohali-based project Victoria Floors, Golf Link II, Sector 116.

Advertisement

While disposing off the three complaints Commission President Justice Raj Shekhar Attri ordered Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (Opposite party) to refund the amount deposited by the six investors in three units of its project along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

Rachit Kaushal, counsel for the complainants, pleaded that despite the fact that substantial amount was deposited by his clients with the opposite party, but the physical possession of the units purchased by them was not given by the mentioned date. “It has also come to the knowledge of the complainants that the opposite party did not possess requisite permissions/sanctions with respect to the project in question, which was launched in violation of the provisions of relevant Acts, rules etc applicable in Punjab,” he added.

The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party in all the three complaints amounted to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, he said.

Advertisement

The counsel for the opposite party stated that the company was committed to pay Pre-EMI to bank(s) under subvention scheme and also delayed compensation as per terms and conditions of the agreements till offer of possession of units was made to the complainants.

“The construction of units is almost complete. The firm has applied for statutory permissions with the competent authorities and as soon as the same are received, possession of the respective units will be delivered to complainants,” he added. The panel further ordered the company to pay compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and Rs50,000 litigation expenses for each case. — TNS

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement