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

Mohali builder fined for failing to hand over flat to buyers

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

Chandigarh, September 6

Advertisement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a Mohali-based builder to refund Rs50,000 booking amount to two city residents, along with Rs10,000 compensation, for failing to hand over possession of a flat to them.

Advertisement

The commission has also directed the developer to pay Rs7,000 as litigation expenses to the residents.

Indrani Goswami and Amalendu Goswami booked a one BHK flat on May 22, 2017, under the project, ‘Dara Kingdom’, at Sector 115, Mohali. The total value of the flat was Rs6,50,000, including service tax, etc. The complainants paid a booking amount of Rs50,000 to M/s Dara Buildtech and Developers Limited, Mohali, on July 10, 2017.

The complainants said the possession of the flat was to be handed over within two years, but they later discovered that there was no development work at the site. Besides, the realtor did not have the requisite permission/sanction from the competent authorities. The commission then sent a notice to the developer, but it failed to file a reply.

Advertisement

The court, in its order, said according to records, it was clear that the developer failed to start the project. Thus, the non-delivery of the unit to the complainants and non-refund of the amount on the part of opposite parties amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice and a deficient act. — TNS

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement