YELLOW STONE BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs. BRAHM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 25/7/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.118 of 2016. Vide this impugned order, while holding the Appellant deficient in providing service to the Complainant/Respondent, following directions were issued by the State Commission:

(2.) The brief admitted facts of the case are that on 14/10/2011 the Complainant/Respondent had purchased a 2 BHK flat measuring 1260 sq.ft. for a price of ?45,38,800/- in the project named "Yellow Stone Landmark Info City", SAS Nagar, Mohali. At the time of the booking, the Appellant had projected to the Complainant that all the necessary approvals had been received and that there was a clearance of 12 storey height of the building given by airport authorities; work on the road network started; the sewage, water supply and electrification was in process; sample flat was also under construction and would be completed by November end; the construction of the apartment was scheduled to start in the month of February 2013 and was expected to be completed by April 2015. The Complainant had visited the site in the month of May 2013 and found that the construction had not yet started. In April 2014 again he went to the site but he did not find any construction activity. He sent legal notice dtd. 11/6/2015 asking for refund of his deposited amount with interest. There is no dispute that by the time the Complainant had paid a sum of ?29,25,000/-. Aggrieved by the said act on the part of the Appellant, the Respondent/Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) Notice of the Complaint was given to the Appellant. The Appellant had taken several contentions. It, however, was not disputed that the Appellant had received a sum of ?29,25,000/- from the Complainant. Letter dtd. 8/10/2012 was also admitted. It was contended that the completion period given till April 2015 was tentative and not final. It was also contended that the dispute qua the Appellant at EDC was pending with GMADA in Civil Writ Petition No.5213 of 2015 and due to pendency of this dispute, the authorities had not cleared the layout plans of the project and therefore, the project could not be started. It was contended that the Complainant had owned three properties at different places and he had booked the flat for investment purpose to gain profit in future.