Back
BINOY KUMAR, SAROJ YADAV
Angad Singh Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority – Respondent
ORDER
The present Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Angad Singh Kohli (Complainant) against Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (Opposite Party) for the alleged deficiency in service, unfair trade practice etc.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Consumer Complaint are that upon seeing the attractive advertisement about a housing project being developed by the Opposite Party, which is a government body of Punjab State carrying out the development and construction work, the Complainant, vide Application Form No. 30357 dated 12.01.2012, applied for a residential apartment in General category, Type – III in the project ‘Purab Premium Apartments’ in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The tentative price was fixed at Rs.69,00,000/- and the possession was promised to be delivered within 36 months. He deposited an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- against the Earnest Money Deposit. The allotment of the flats was to be done 22.03.2012 through a draw of lots. The Opposite Party issued the Letter of Intent (LOI) for allotment dated 23.05.2012 to the Complainant, informing that he was allotted Unit bearing no. 224 and also raised an additional amoun
Real Estate – SC in cases of delay in offer of possession has ordered refund with 9% S.I. per annum which appears to be reasonable.
No Occupancy Certificate – The Occupation Certificate is not available even as on date, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
(1) Possession – Directing possession of the apartment without the requisite certificates would be inappropriate and not in the interest of justice.(2) National Commission – National Commission deter....
(1) Remedies - The remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to the remedies available under special statutes.(2) Refund of Money - Buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely fo....
Earnest Money Clause – Earnest Money Clause in the Agreement being wholly one-sided and unjustified constitutes an unfair trade practice and therefore, is not binding upon the Complainant.
For failure of delivery of possession of flats within the stipulated, refund of amount directed.
1) Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint2) No hesitation in holding that terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-s....
Pecuniary jurisdiction – it is clear that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdict....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
