Finding the builder culpable of service lapses for failing to hand over possession of a flat despite receiving the full payment, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (Additional Bench), has instructed M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd to compensate the complainant with Rs 2.50 lakh for mental distress and physical inconvenience.

Additionally, the commission directed the real estate firm to reimburse an amount of Rs 55,06,032 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of each deposit, and to also pay Rs 50,000 towards legal expenses incurred by the complainant.

In his complaint, Nakshatar Singh Sohal, a resident of Hisar, Haryana, stated that he had booked a unit in the “Emerging Heights III” project located in Sector 115, Mohali. He paid a total of Rs 51,06,032 to M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd, financed partly by a home loan of Rs 37,40,541. An additional amount of Rs 4 lakh was paid at the builder’s demand.

Sponsored Ads

However, as per a letter dated August 1, 2019, the builder only issued symbolic possession on paper and failed to hand over actual physical possession of the flat.

The builder also failed to procure or furnish the occupation and completion certificates. Despite repeated follow-ups, neither was the construction of the flat finalized nor was the physical possession handed over. Moreover, the sale agreement was never executed and no allotment letter was issued in the complainant’s name.

Owing to the builder’s failure to honor its commitments, the buyer demanded a refund of the amount paid along with accrued interest, but received no satisfactory response.

In its defense, the builder refuted all allegations and claimed the complainant defaulted on the agreed payment plan. It argued that all essential amenities were in place and that the complainant could take possession of the property.

The builder also asserted that there was neither any lapse in service nor any engagement in unfair trade practices on its part.

After evaluating the submissions, the commission concluded that the builder was indeed deficient in providing the promised services.

It noted that the project lacked genuine development and termed it a complete sham. As a result, the complainant was deemed justly entitled to a refund along with compensation.

Accordingly, the commission ordered the builder to return Rs 55,06,032 along with 9% annual interest from the deposit dates, to compensate Rs 2.50 lakh for emotional distress and physical suffering, and to pay Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs.