GMADA penalised for delay in possession of apartment

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, March 12

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Mohali, to refund money and pay compensation to a city resident for not handing over the apartment within the stipulated time complete in all respects despite taking its total cost.

Jagvir Singh Kang, a resident of Sector 15, Chandigarh, in a complaint filed through advocate Arjun Sharma, said he applied for the allotment of an apartment under the general category in Purab Premium Apartments in Sector 88, SAS Nagar, Mohali. He was declared a successful allottee in the draw held on March 20, 2012. The total cost of the apartment was Rs 69 lakh. As per the agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be given after the completion of development works at the site within a period of 36 months from the issuance of LOI i.e. up to May 21, 2015. However, it was offered after a delay of more than 11 months vide allotment letter dated July 5, 2016.

He said against the total cost of the apartment, he paid an amount of Rs 76.60 lakh. Still, the project was far from completion and lacked basic facilities. Since the possession offered was incomplete, he approached the opposite party (GMADA) several times to provide him a copy of the occupation certificate, but to no avail. Eventually, he requested the opposite party to refund his amount as per agreement. The opposite party refused to refund the amount vide letter dated March 30, 2022.

Denying all charges, the opposite party said allotment letters as well as offer of possession letters of apartments had already been issued to successful applicants and the allottees were residing there.

It said there was no lapse on part of the opposite party and the physical possession was offered after the project got completion certificate, which was well in the knowledge of the complainant. The claim regarding refund was time bound and at later stages, it could not be sought as per the policy.

After hearing the arguments, the commission, consisting of Padma Pandey, presiding member, and Preetinder Singh, member, held GMADA guilty of deficiency in services.

The commission said the opposite party did not prove on record any completion/occupation certificate issued by the competent authority regarding completion of development works in the project. Completion/occupation certificate was required to be obtained by every promoter before delivery of possession of the plot/flat/unit, etc., to the allottee. In view of this, the OP was directed to refund Rs 76,60,000, along with compensation, by way of interest @9 per cent per annum, without deducting any TDS, to the complainant, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, within a period of 30 days. The commission also directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment and Rs 33,000 as cost of litigation within a period of one month.