Developer fails to give flat possession, fined Rs 1 lakh | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 25, 2017-Saturday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Developer fails to give flat possession, fined Rs 1 lakh

chandigarh Updated: Nov 15, 2013 23:58 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times

Coming down heavily on a developer for failing to hand over possession of a flat, the state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has directed Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to a couple hailing from Patiala.

Disposing of the complaint filed by Dr Yuti Mukesh Mishra and her husband Dr Mukesh Mishra, the commission has also directed the developer to refund Rs 42.92 lakh with 10% interest. The developer has also been directed to pay Rs 10,000 as cost of litigation to the complainants.

The couple had booked a flat for Rs 44.05 lakh at Orchard County, a project of the Ansal Lotus Melange projects private limited in Sector 115, Kharar-Landran Road, SAS Nagar, in November 2010.

The complainants alleged that the developer failed to execute the project as per their assurance, and there were serious lapses and breach of terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

They alleged that the developer launched the project in 2007 and started constructing the flats and they booked their flat in 2010, but till date it is not complete.

In reply, Ansal Lotus Melange projects private limited said the complainants failed to take possession for a long time, after issuance of offer of possession and, as such, they were issued a cancellation notice in April 2013.

The commission its order dated November 12 held, “There is no document, on record, to prove that the time the possession was offered to the complainants in March 2012 or the completion and occupation certificates had been obtained by the developer.”

The consumer commission held the developer deficient in service, “for not offering the legal physical possession complete in all respects, for not obtaining the completion and occupation certificates and failing to providing common facilities, which they were bound to provide, complete in all respects at the time of offering possession.”