The district consumer disputes redressal commission has held the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for handing over a flat at Purab Premium Apartments in Sector-88 without obtaining the mandatory completion certificate and delaying possession.
The complaint was filed by Shilpi Shrivastava, a resident of Phase 10, who had applied for a flat under the Purab Premium Apartments scheme in 2012. She was allotted a unit through a draw of lots and issued a letter of intent on May 21, 2012, with a promised possession timeline of 36 months.
However, the authority failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period and instead offered it in June 2016 on an “as is where is” basis. The complainant argued that significant construction work was still pending and that she was compelled to take possession in October 2016 under threat of cancellation and forfeiture.
The commission observed that the developer had not obtained a completion or occupancy certificate before handing over possession, making the offer legally unsustainable. It further noted that charging maintenance and service-related costs without completing the project amounted to deficiency in service.
Rejecting the authority’s objections, including claims that the complaint was time-barred and that the flat was purchased for speculative purposes, the commission ruled in favour of the complainant.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the authority’s objections, including claims that the complaint was time-barred and that the flat was purchased for speculative purposes, the commission ruled in favour of the complainant.
{{/usCountry}}Partly allowing the complaint, the commission directed GMADA to pay interest at 9% per annum on the deposited amount from the due date of possession May 21, 2015 till October 7, 2016, when possession was handed over. It also restrained the authority from charging any future maintenance until the completion certificate is obtained.
Additionally, the commission awarded ₹50,000 to the complainant towards mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs.
The order was pronounced by a bench comprising president SK Aggarwal, member Paramjeet Kaur, and member Lieutenant Colonel Jasbir Singh Bath.