Sign in

Sahara City Homes directed to refund ₹2L to Chandigarh man

Had told him to transfer flat’s amount to any of their other projects

Updated on: Nov 27, 2019, 01:32:57 IST
Hindustan Times, Chandigarh | By , Chandigarh
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Sahara City Homes to refund over 2 lakh and pay a compensation of 25,000 to a local resident for deficiency in service.

HT Image
HT Image

In his complaint, Neeraj Jain, a resident of Sector 11-B, Chandigarh, said that he booked a 3 BR Type-C flat in 2004 in a Sahara City Homes project for which he paid over 2 lakh.

He said that instead of giving him possession, the developers issued a letter on May 9, 2011, informing him about the option of transferring the amount to any other existing project of Sahara City Homes.

Jain sought a refund by sending a letter on September 18, 2018. After he did not get it, he filed the complaint.

Sahara City Homes said that Jain was informed about the status of the project and the reasons for the delay which were beyond their control at regular intervals.

Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, they asked for dismissal of the complaint.

The forum stated: “The opposite party after receiving payment in 2004 did nothing at the site to develop the project. They definitely utilised the amount paid by the complainant for its commercial purpose They should have suo motu returned the money to the complainant with interest if it is so serious, rather it chose to file a petition in the high court and slept over the matter waiting for the outcome of the litigation without any sense of urgency to pay back the complainant.”

Observing it as an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service, the forum directed Sahara City Homes to refund 2,03,066 to Jain at an interest of 8% per annum from the date of respective payments, till realisation.

Ordered to pay 11,000 as litigation cost

It also directed them to pay 25,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to the complainant and 11,000 as litigation cost.