E-Paper
Firm told to refund ₹81 lakh for delaying possession of plots
Two complaints were filed against Emaar MGF Land Private Limited for delay in giving possession of plots at ‘Mohali Hills’ project in Sector 109
In two separate cases, the state consumer disputes redressal commission has directed a company to refund ₹34.46 lakh and ₹47.17 lakh for failing to give possession of plots in their project ‘Mohali Hills’. In one of the cases, the firm has also been told to pay ₹50,000 compensation to the complainant.
In the first case, Kamal Kad and his wife Aruna Kad of Dhakoli, Zirakpur, had filed a case against Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and Emaar MGF Land Limited, New Delhi. They sought directions to the companies to refund ₹34.46 lakh which was paid by them to buy a 300 square yard plot at the project site in Sector 109, Mohali.
Kad complained that despite paying the amount by March 2009, he did not get the possession of the plot by June 19, 2010, that was the time period envisaged under Clause 8 of the agreement dated June 20, 2007.
During the hearings, the companies contested that “Time was not the essence of contract as it was mentioned in the agreement that the company will only endeavour to complete development work within three years from the date of execution thereof and that for any delays, stipulated penalty has been provided in the agreement, which safeguarded the interest of the complainants.”
It was stated that “Since there was a delay in offering possession of the plot in question, the opposite parties, vide emails, offered relocation to a habitable plot in the same project but the complainants did not accept the same.”
The commission observed that the complainants had booked the plot in 2006 and still they are empty-handed despite the fact that ₹34.46 lakh was paid against the total sale consideration of ₹36.19 lakh.
“The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and unfair trade practice on their part,” it said. The commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally, refund the amount of ₹34 lakh, 46,406 to the complainants along with an interest @12% per annum from the respective date of the deposit, within a period of 30 days.
In another case, Hitesh Jain of Delhi filed a complaint against Emaar MGF Land Limited, Mohali, its managing director and chief executive officer, New Delhi. He sought a refund of ₹47.17 lakh paid by him towards the purchase of a plot in the same project.
He said that he had paid ₹47.17 lakh from 2006 to 2010, yet the possession of the plot was not delivered to him by July 3, 2010.
He also said that in 2008, the company informed him that his allotment had been changed to another plot in Pinewood Park, Sector 108, Mohali, which he did not accept.
The company stated in reply that the complainant was relocated only on his request.
“He was offered possession of the alternate plot but failed to take over, despite reminders having been sent to him,” the firm told the forum.
After hearing, it was, however, told to refund ₹47.17 lakh to the complainant along with an interest @10% pa (as prayed) from the respective date of the deposit, within a period of 30 days.
Apart from this, the forum directed the firm to pay compensation for “causing mental agony and physical harassment, deficiency in providing service, adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation,” to the tune of ₹50,000 in lump sum.
