Firms to pay Rs 50,000 relief for not giving possession of property | punjab$chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 23, 2017-Thursday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Firms to pay Rs 50,000 relief for not giving possession of property

punjab Updated: Dec 01, 2015 10:41 IST
Nikhil Sharma

For failing to hand over possession of a property within a stipulated time, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed two city-based real estate firms to pay compensation Rs 50,000 for causing mental harassment to a complaint.

The realtor has also been asked to refund Rs 5 lakh along with 9% per annum interest from the respective date(s) of deposits till its realisation. The firm will also pay Rs 50 per sq ft per month of the super area of the units allotted to Rachna Jain, a resident of New Delhi.

Jain had filed a complaint against Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited, Sector 34, and Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Sector 34, accusing the firms of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

As per the complaint, in 2006, Chandigarh Overseas came up with a project, ‘Fashion Technology Park’, in Sector 90, SAS Nagar. To start her own business, Jain purchased a 125 sq ft unit in the said project.

She submitted an application along with Rs 1.25 lakh cheque on November 8, 2006, following which she was allotted the unit on the sixth floor under the small investor scheme launched in the industrial zone of the knowledge fashion technology park.

She paid total Rs 5 lakh as per the schedule given by the opposite parties. She averred the officials of Greenfield Sites gave her a buy-back offer of Rs 7.5 lakh per unit, and the intimation was to be given within 30 months from the date of construction. She availed the said offer and was assured the buy-back option would be honoured by January 30, 2010.

She further averred since the firms could not execute the project in time, they assured her a compensation amount of Rs 50 per sq ft. However, they failed to do so. The respondents jointly averred that Jain had not purchased the unit in question for livelihood and purpose was to invest the spare money and enjoy lease rentals. There was no intentional delay, they stated.

In its order, the forum observed, “The respondents did not send any such letter to the complainant that there were force majeure circumstances because of which the project was being delayed. The respondents didn’t deliver the possession nor refunded the deposited amount, so they are liable to pay the penalty.”