Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) has been found guilty of failing to deliver possession of a plot with promised facilities within the stipulated period. Hence, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed GMADA to deliver possession of the plot or refund the money. The commission also fined the authority Rs 40,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
The verdict has been pronounced by the commission bench comprising of H P S Mahal, presiding judicial member and Kiran Sibal, member, following a complaint lodged by Davinder Singh and Hardeep Kaur, residents of Sector 71, Mohali.
It is a matter pertaining to a plot purchased by the complainants in Gateway City, Sector 118-119, Mohali, from Suryansh Mohan and Letter of Intent (LOI) was communicated by GMADA.
According to the LOI, the possession of the said plot was to be given within the 18 months of the issuance of the letter. The tentative price of the plot was Rs 53,89,860 fixed at the rate of 21,000 per Sq. yard and was duly paid by the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the authority.
Accordingly, the complainants were entitled to possession after completion of development works and the authority was bound to give possession after 18 months from September 21, 2016.
It is further stated that as per information gathered by the complainants, some portion of the plot is claimed by third person and a dispute regarding the same is pending in civil court, Mohali. The said fact has never been disclosed by the authority till the date of filing the present case, claimed the complainants.
The complainant vehemently contended that the opposite parties have failed to complete the development works at the site. Moreover, flooding of the site during rainy season and lack of security/boundary wall were also required to be sorted out by the authority, they added.
After hearing arguments of the counsels of the two parties, the commission opined that it stands proved that the authority failed to complete the development works at the site and failed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainants, along with promised facilities or amenities within the stipulated period.
“Accordingly, the complainants are entitled for actual physical possession of the plot. Further, as there is considerable delay in valid offer of the possession of the plot, the complainants are entitled to compensation,” the panel said.
