The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali, has directed Sky Rock City Welfare Society and its president Navjeet Singh to refund ₹4.86 lakh with interest to a Chandigarh resident after failing to deliver possession of a residential plot booked in the society’s project in Sectors 111-112, Mohali.
The commission also ordered the opposite parties to pay ₹50,000 towards compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
According to the complaint filed by Manish Rana, a resident of Sector 43A, Chandigarh, he became a member of the society on September 1, 2011 by paying ₹10,000 and booked a 150-square-yard residential plot at the rate of ₹12,700 per square yard, taking the total sale consideration to ₹19.05 lakh.
The terms and conditions of allotment stated that the society would develop the land and allot the plot within two years. The complainant later paid ₹4,76,250 towards the plot on May 13, 2012.
In October 2013, the society informed the complainant that its promoter licence had been restored and demanded the remaining payment. When the complainant sought possession in March 2015, the society allegedly told him that development work was nearing completion and possession would be delivered by January 2016. However, possession was never handed over.
During the proceedings, the commission examined a Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) public notice placed on record by the complainant. The notice stated that the promoter’s licence had been cancelled on May 2, 2018 and advised the public not to enter into sale or purchase transactions in the unauthorised colony being developed by the society.
{{/usCountry}}During the proceedings, the commission examined a Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) public notice placed on record by the complainant. The notice stated that the promoter’s licence had been cancelled on May 2, 2018 and advised the public not to enter into sale or purchase transactions in the unauthorised colony being developed by the society.
{{/usCountry}}The opposite parties did not appear before the commission despite service of notice and proceeded against ex parte. The commission noted that the allegations made by the complainant remained unrebutted and that the documentary evidence supported his claim.
During arguments, counsel for the complainant submitted that the society was not in a position to hand over possession and that the complainant was willing to accept a refund instead.
Accepting the request, the commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the society and its president to refund ₹4,86,250 with 9% annual interest from the respective dates of deposit within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order.
The commission further ordered that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the refund will carry 12% annual interest until actual payment. It also directed the opposite parties to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and litigation costs.