A Chandigarh woman who paid ₹16 lakh to book a flat in Mohali’s Realcon Park Heights project but received neither possession nor the documents required for a housing loan has been awarded a refund with interest and ₹2 lakh in compensation by the district consumer commission on Friday.
The commission, comprising president SK Aggarwal and member Paramjeet Kaur, passed the order, directing Geetu Construction Pvt Ltd and its director Pradeep Kumar to refund the amount with 9% annual interest from the respective dates of deposit within 30 days of receiving a free certified copy of the order. If they fail to pay within the stipulated period, the amount will carry 12% annual interest until payment.
The commission also directed the builder and the director to pay ₹2 lakh to the complainant, Balwinder Kaur, towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
Kaur booked unit 36-B on the second floor of Realcon Park Heights in Sector 113, Mohali, on May 28, 2023, for a sale consideration of ₹72 lakh. She said that the company and its directors had assured her of timely completion, amenities and lawful development rights over the project land.
According to the complaint, she paid ₹16 lakh but the builder did not execute a builder-buyer agreement or provide documents required by the State Bank of India to process her housing loan. Despite repeated requests, the company did not furnish the papers or updates on the project.
{{/usCountry}}According to the complaint, she paid ₹16 lakh but the builder did not execute a builder-buyer agreement or provide documents required by the State Bank of India to process her housing loan. Despite repeated requests, the company did not furnish the papers or updates on the project.
{{/usCountry}}She also alleged that the developers lacked complete development rights over the land and that the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) had revoked the development licence over non-payment of government dues. Construction at the site had stopped.
The commission observed that the builder had failed to execute the agreement and provide the documents despite receiving the payment. It also noted that the project had not progressed as represented and GMADA had revoked the licence.
The bench rejected the builder’s limitation objection, observing that the cause of action was recurring as she sought a refund.
Geetu Construction and Kumar failed to file their written replies within 45 days, while the other opposite parties, including society representatives, proceeded against ex-parte. The commission said the complainant’s evidence remained unopposed. The complaint was partly allowed, and the refund directions were issued against opposite parties 1 and 2.