The district consumer disputes redressal forum directed a housing society to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to a Sector 70 resident for failing to give her possession of a residential plot.Disposing of a complaint filed by Kawaljeet Kaur, the forum asked Sky Rock City Welfare Society to also refund Rs 8.25 lakh she had paid for the plot along with 12% interest effective from September 2011 within a month.
In her complaint, Kaur submitted that she applied for a 150 square yards plot costing `16.5 lakh in Sector 111-112 and had deposited two cheques of Rs4,12,500 each in September 2011 and in January 2012.
The complainant said despite making these payments, the society neither issued her an allotment letter nor possession of the plot was handed over to her. She said on March 26, 2014, she requested for a refund of the payments as per the terms and conditions of the society, which stated she was entitled for a refund after March 25, 2017.
She then filed a complaint with the forum accusing the society of deficiency in services by not refunding the money she had deposited as well as cancelling her society membership.
The complainant also claimed that the society had not obtained approval for setting up the residential colony.
Meanwhile, the respondent denied the allegation of deficiency in services and produced a letter from GMADA dated September 27, 2013, wherein the letter of intent for setting up a residential colony was issued to the society.
{{/usCountry}}Meanwhile, the respondent denied the allegation of deficiency in services and produced a letter from GMADA dated September 27, 2013, wherein the letter of intent for setting up a residential colony was issued to the society.
{{/usCountry}}The forum said: “We found glaring discrepancies in the stand of the housing society where, on one hand, the society got the licence reinstated on May 27, 2013, and within a short span of one year claims to have developed the area and provided amenities to allot the plots within 50 days from the date of filing of the present written statement in the complaint on June 27, 2014. Such a claim is dubious. Under the circumstances, the complainant is well within her right to seek refund of the deposited amount and has proved her case on the basis of evidence.”