Mohali: Commission issues arrest warrants against Zirakpur builder
Panchkula resident Mamta Jain and her husband Vinod Kumar Jain submitted a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali, against M/s Citi Centre Developers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, and its partner Pankaj Gupta, a resident of Sector 21, Panchkula
For failing to execute the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali, the commission has issued bailable warrants against a Zirakpur-based builder and has directed the Panchkula commissioner of police (CP) to arrest him.
Panchkula resident Mamta Jain and her husband Vinod Kumar Jain submitted a complaint with the commission against M/s Citi Centre Developers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, and its partner Pankaj Gupta, a resident of Sector 21, Panchkula, accusing them of deficient services by not providing timely possession of a property.
After the builder failed to refund the money paid by the complainant as asked by the commission in January this year, Gupta was asked to appear in person before the commission. When Gupta failed to appear before the commission, it directed the Panchkula CP to arrest him.
“In case he furnished a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and undertakes to appear in the district consumer commission on November 11, he may be released on bail forthwith with a direction to appear on the said date. In case he does not furnish the personal bond, he shall be arrested and brought in custody and be produced on November 11,” the order read.
It was averred that the complainants booked a service apartment measuring 500 sq ft super area in the project namely Chandigarh Citi Centre, Zirakpur, on August 17, 2016, to start consultancy services in Zirakpur.
The total sale consideration of the unit was settled at ₹25 lakh, along with service tax of ₹1.12 lakh. The complainant paid ₹2 lakh as the booking amount vide cheque dated August 17, 2016. The complaints claimed that the builder offered to waive off the EDC, IDC and IFMS charges on the condition that the remaining payment be made in one go.
Following this, the complainants paid ₹23 lakh via cheque dated August 19, 2016. On the same day, another amount of ₹1.12 lakh was paid by the complainants through cheque towards service tax. The letter of allotment of Unit No 16, 4th Floor, Block-F, was issued by the builder on August 23, 2016. The builder also vided a letter dated August 23, 2016, waiving off the EDC, IDC, and IFMS charges.
The builder (here referred to as opposite parties) agreed to deliver possession of the unit on or before 24 months from the date of signing the agreement i.e. August 23, 2016. The opposite parties also issued a letter dated August 25, 2016, to the effect of assured return @ 12% per annum.
Despite receipt of full payment, the OPs failed to deliver the physical possession by August 23, 2018. After the builder failed to hand over the possession of the said property with the promised amenities even till May 31, 2021, the complainants approached the consumer commission seeking a refund of their money, along with interest and compensation for mental agony, besides litigation costs. Submitting their reply, the counsel for the builder averred that the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumers as the unit purchased fell in the category of commercial property.
The commission on January 23 had directed the builder to refund the money paid by the complainants, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f April 01, 2020, within 30 days, besides paying ₹50,000 for mental harassment.