Consumer redressal panel: Refund applicants’ money with 18 per cent interest
Holding that the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and the State Bank of India (SBI) had indulged in unfair trade practice in misleading the applicant-homebuyers, a bench of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered refund of money deposited along with an 18 per cent interest.
The bench of SC Jain and NP Kaushik also ordered each party to pay Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation to each complainant for “causing harassment, inconvenience, sadness, anguish and mental agony”, and also to deposit Rs 25 lakh each in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the state maintained by the Commission for making good the loss “caused to those flat buyers who have been declared successful in the draw of lots and have not come to the Consumer Fora and are not identifiable conveniently.”
The complainants, who had been declared successful in draw of lots for flats to be constructed by GNIDA, had surrendered the same. GNIDA refunded only 50 per cent of their initial deposit on the plea that their surrender letter had come after the expiry of the 45-day period from the date of issuance of letter of allotment.
However, the complainants, who had taken loan from SBI, pointed out that they had received their letters from SBI and not GNIDA, that too with just a few days remaining for the 45-day period to lapse.
In its order, the State Commission noted that both SBI and GNIDA were in a “dominant position vis-à-vis the complainants” and that the “complainants have been running from pillar to post to receive their letters of allotment.”
One car per flat in society parking lots: Delhi HC
The Delhi high court has ruled that a flat owner can park only one vehicle in a designated slot inside the complex unless granted exemption.
The rules framed by a cooperative society would be final in this regard, the court said while fining a resident Rs 1 lakh and dismissing his plea demanding access to more than one slot as he has four cars. Common areas in a society are meant for use by all members and not to park cars, the court said.
A bench of Justices Gita Mittal and IS Mehta said, “Air pollution is not the only environmental impact that vehicles cause. Parking of excess cars in open areas reduces available space underneath them for rainwater harvesting, which enables charging of aquifers – another adverse impact on environment.”