Developer to pay Rs 1 lakh for not providing promised facilities
Terming it guilty of charging for facilities which are not in place, district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a developer, JTPL Township Private Limited, to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh, along with Rs 20,000 as cost of litigation, to a Barnala resident.chandigarh Updated: Jan 04, 2014 23:19 IST
Terming it guilty of charging for facilities which are not in place, district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a developer, JTPL Township Private Limited, to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh, along with Rs 20,000 as cost of litigation, to a Barnala resident.
Kusum Lata had approached the consumer forum alleging deficiency in services on part of JTPL Township Private Limited for delayed possession of plot. She also accused the developer of charging for facilities, which had not been provided by the developer and charging high extra development charges (EDC).
Directing the developer to put in place club facility within six months, the consumer forum in its order dated January 2, held, “Charging for facility, which has not been put into place, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.”
During the pendency of the compliant, both the parties resolved the issue of possession of the plot amicably, thus the forum directed the developer to hand over the possession of plot to Lata, subject to payment of the balance 10% amount within one month, along with refunding excess amount charged on account of EDC.
In her complaint, Lata had alleged that she had bought the plot from original allottee in 2009 after paying Rs 15.09 lakh against the price of the plot besides Rs 4.16 lakh as EDC and Rs 25,000 as club membership. She maintained that as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to her within 24 months. She alleged that the EDC were higher than the rates payable to the state authorities and she had even paid Rs 25,000 for club charges but till date it was not made functional.
The developer sought dismissal of the complaint stating that Lata and her family members were into speculative buying for commercial gains and, therefore, she was not a consumer.
They said the delay in handing over the plot was due to Lata's request for an alternative plot. They denied charging EDC higher than the rates fixed by the government.