Housing society fined 22.5 lakh for delaying possession of flats
For ‘delayed and defective’ possession of flats without basic amenities, district consumer disputes redressal forum, SAS Nagar, directed a housing society to pay Rs 2.25 lakh each as compensation to 10 residents harassed at the hand of the society.chandigarh Updated: Jul 18, 2014 15:21 IST
For ‘delayed and defective’ possession of flats without basic amenities, district consumer disputes redressal forum, SAS Nagar, directed a housing society to pay Rs 2.25 lakh each as compensation to 10 residents harassed at the hand of the society.
Providing relief to 10 persons who had invested in the housing project floated by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation (CGEWHO) in 2006, and still awaiting ‘effective’ possession of the flats, the consumer forum has held the housing society deficient in services. The housing society will also pay Rs 22,000 each of 10 residents as litigation cost.
In February, the forum had allowed about 36 complaints and granted similar relief to the allottees. Om Narain Bhargava of Panchkula, and nine others filed separate complaints against the CGEWHO, alleging wrongful demand of final installment and delay in development.
Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the complainants contended that the CGEWHO had floated a scheme for allotment of residential flats under the name and style of ‘Kendriya Vihar, SAS Nagar’ in December 2006. The allotment letter was issued in May 2007, and the project was to be completed within 30 months, which time expired in November 2009. Chandgothia pointed out that the apartments were still not complete and therefore the demand of final installment from the complainant was illegal. He added the facilities and amenities were not in place and no approval of the competent authority for sanctions was placed on record.
Unimpressed by the submissions of the CGEWHO, the consumer forum, presided over by Madhu P Singh, held, “The project is incomplete and the act of CGEWHO, in offering defective possession and that too at a belated stage after the expiry of promised 30 months, amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we find the act of CGEWHO in offering delayed and defective possession without removal of high tension wires passing over the property of the complainants; non-availability of electricity connection through the PSPCL; reduction in number of covered parking space amounts to act of deficiency in service.”