Developer to refund Rs 13 lakh for not constructing apartment | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 21, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Developer to refund Rs 13 lakh for not constructing apartment

For failing to provide the possession of an apartment, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed developer, Reliant Infrastructure Private Limited, to refund the cost of Rs 13.34 lakh along with 14% interest to a Sector-9 based firm.

chandigarh Updated: Dec 28, 2013 22:25 IST
HT Correspondent

For failing to provide the possession of an apartment, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed developer, Reliant Infrastructure Private Limited, to refund the cost of Rs 13.34 lakh along with 14% interest to a Sector-9 based firm.


The consumer commission has also directed the developer, Reliant Infrastructure Private Limited, to pay RS 20,000 as cost of litigation to the firm - Kangaroo Studies Private Limited.

Kangaroo Studies Private Limited had moved the consumer commissioner alleging that they had purchased a studio apartment from the developer at Sante Majra, SAS Nagar, for residential purpose of one of its directors in September 2008. The total cost of the apartment was Rs 14.83 lakh inclusive of basic price and preferential location charges. The possession of the apartment was proposed to be given by October 2009. Despite depositing the sum of Rs 13.34 lakh, neither the apartment in question was constructed till date, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof, did arise.

Reliant Infrastructure, in its reply pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer as it was a private limited company and had booked the apartment for the purpose of investment with a view to sell it to gain huge profits.

The developer further said that due to the ban imposed on mining activity in Punjab, availability of material in the market was affected, as a result of which the construction activity also slowed down and denied any deficiency in services.

Consumer commissioner in its order dated December 18, held, “By not delivering the legal physical possession of the apartment in question with all promised facilities and amenities by the stipulated period of October 2009, the developer was not only deficient in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.”