District consumer disputes redressal forum here has directed a Sector-37 resident, who is a stakeholder in a housing project in Kharar, to pay Rs. 35,000 as compensation to a Delhi resident for failing to refund investors after the developer and builder failed to hand over constructed flats.
Satinder Kaur, a stakeholder in the housing project of Sector 34-based JS Dwellers and promoted by Mehta Build Construction Limited, has been directed to also refund Rs. 1.73 lakh to Surinder Kumar Gupta and pay Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation.
In his complaint, Gupta had claimed that he had contacted JS Dwellers and Mehta Build Construction Limited for purchasing a flat, and was allotted one in Crescent Apartment Complex, Kharar. He claimed that he paid Rs. 7.03 lakh.
He added that later, Sector-37 resident Satinder Kaur had agreed to hand over the constructed flats to the complainant and his eight colleagues if they agreed to pay the revised price of Rs. 12 lakh. As the complainant and his colleagues refused to pay the revised price, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was executed in April 2008 with her in which she agreed to pay Rs. 62.5 lakh to the complainant and his colleagues. Since the amount was not paid as per the MoU, a supplementary MoU was executed in September 2008 in which Satinder Kaur undertook to pay all dues amounting to Rs. 62.5 lakh by December 2008.
Complainant alleged that Satinder Kaur failed to adhere even to the supplementary MoU and only paid some amount in installments.
Satinder Kaur, contesting the complaint, denied any deficiency and said that she had a stake in the flats and the builder and developer were unable to complete the construction of flats. She claimed that Gupta and the eigh other persons had approached her to represent them to save their money. She claimed that she was not liable to pay any amount as she had discharged her liability fully to the authorised representative of the complainant, Prem Kumar Malik.
However, the consumer forum said, "If that is the case, then it was incumbent upon her to have produced some concrete proof of any such payment having been made …. Mere assertions, bereft of any cogent tangible evidence, cannot be believed. Thus, failure to adhere to the MoUs certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on her part."