Realty firm to pay for de­lay in hand­ing over stu­dio

Hindustan Times (Chandigarh) - Live - - FRONT PAGE - Chandigarh@hin­dus­tan­times.com

HT Cor­re­spon­dent CHANDIGARH: The District Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Fo­rum, held a de­vel­oper de­fi­cient in ser­vices for fail­ing to hand over pos­ses­sion of a de­signer stu­dio de­spite as­sur­ance. They have been di­rected to pay Rs 50,000 as com­pen­sa­tion to Aan­chal Goyal, a Sec­tor 35 res­i­dent.

Goyal had moved the con­sumer fo­rum against a Sec­tor 34 based Chandigarh Over­seas Pri­vate Limited (COPL), a com­pany pro­moted by a group of de­vel­op­ers and Green­field Sites Man­age­ment Pri­vate Limited.

The con­sumer fo­rum di­rected the de­vel­op­ers to pay, jointly and sev­er­ally, Rs 7.5 lakh as com­pen­sa­tion as per the clause along with Rs 10,000 as cost of lit­i­ga­tion.

Goyal, in her com­plaint main­tained said that hav­ing a diploma in fash­ion de­sign­ing, with an in­ten­tion to start her own busi­ness, she ap­plied for a unit in their small investor scheme under the name and style of In­dus­trial Knowl­edge (Fash­ion Tech­nol­ogy) Park, Sec­tor 90, SAS Na­gar, in Oc­to­ber 2006.

The to­tal cost of the unit al­lot­ted to the com­plainant was Rs 5 lakh.

Goyal said that as per the agree­ment she was el­i­gi­ble for the buy­back op­tion. She claimed that the project was to be com­pleted be­tween June 30 to De­cem­ber 30, 2010; but the same was not com­pleted.

As per the agree­ment the de­vel­op­ers were re­quired to pay a com­pen­sa­tion for de­lay in con­struc­tion from Jan­uary 18, 2010.

Goyal also claimed that the de­vel­op­ers had nei­ther given the pos­ses­sion of the unit in ques­tion nor paid her the buy­back money.

The de­vel­op­ers - Chandigarh Over­seas Pri­vate Limited (COPL) and Green­field Sites Man­age­ment Pri­vate Limited - failed to turn up de­spite no­tice, thus they were pro­ceeded against ex­parte.

The con­sumer fo­rum while hold­ing the de­vel­op­ers de­fi­cient in ser­vices held, "The non­ap­pear­ance of the de­vel­op­ers de­spite no­tice show that they have noth­ing to say in their de­fence or against the al­le­ga­tions made by the com­plainant. There­fore, the as­ser­tions made by the com­plainant go un-re­but­ted and un-con­tro­verted. As such, the same are ac­cepted as cor­rect and the de­fi­ciency in ser­vice is proved."

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.