The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has penalised Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), SAS Nagar, for delay in possession of flat to a Chandigarh resident.
In an order on April 5, the forum directed GMADA to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the entire amount deposited for the period of delay in delivery of possession–November 18, 2017 to December 29, 2020. It also directed the authority to pay ₹1 lakh compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, and ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
The complainant, identified as Raj Kumari from Sector 41, had applied for category A flat in IT City Mohali, a residential colony of 750 plots developed by GMADA in SAS Nagar. The applications were filed from July 18 to August 19 in 2016. The complainant had applied in August 2016, alongwith a ₹5.13 lakh deposit, and letter of intent (LoI) was issued in November of the same year. She then paid an additional ₹52 lakh. As per the complainant, the possession of the plot was to be handed over within a year of issuing LoI. However, the plot was handed over to her in December 2020, over three years after the deadline. She filed a complaint seeking compensation for this delay.
In reply, GMADA stated that the project could not be completed as the amended environmental clearance by the state level environment impact assessment authority was not issued to GMADA and the public was informed. Additionally, lockdown during COVID-19 also led to delay. “If the woman was aggrieved, she could have refused to accept the offer of allotment within 30 days so that the deposited amount could have been refunded as per rules. After accepting possession and getting a sale deed executed, the complainant cannot raise the issue of delay in delivery,” the reply further said.
{{/usCountry}}In reply, GMADA stated that the project could not be completed as the amended environmental clearance by the state level environment impact assessment authority was not issued to GMADA and the public was informed. Additionally, lockdown during COVID-19 also led to delay. “If the woman was aggrieved, she could have refused to accept the offer of allotment within 30 days so that the deposited amount could have been refunded as per rules. After accepting possession and getting a sale deed executed, the complainant cannot raise the issue of delay in delivery,” the reply further said.
{{/usCountry}}The complainant had also alleged GMADA has wrongfully kept an amount of ₹1,79,662. The authority responded that the excess amount was deposited by the complainant on her own and she is not entitled to any interest on the same, especially when no refund request has been raised. The forum directed GMADA to refund this amount with an interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint.