SUKHDEEP KAUR Vs. ATS INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and seeking compensation for loss on account of payments that were made before the subvention clause along with ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The Complainant's case centres on the inconsistency in the subvention period for her Apartment in the 'ATS Casa Espana' project. The Complainant was attracted by the advertisement of 'Chandigarh Tricity Property Solutions' and approached the Opposite Party No. 1 in September 2015. After being allotted Apartment No. 8031, she signed an Apartment Buyer Agreement on 26/9/2015, with a sale price of approximately Rs.1.00 crore. According to Clause 6.2 of the Agreement, possession of the Apartment was to be delivered within 42 months, with a grace period of 3 months. The Complainant chose a Construction-Linked Payment Plan and a subvention scheme, allowing her to defer EMIs for 36 months, starting at a stage when the construction would be nearing completion. A Tripartite Agreement was also entered into on the same day. Till October 2017, the Opposite Party No. 1 honoured the subvention scheme by paying the interest as per the Tripartite Agreement. However, a letter dtd. 28/9/2017 informed the Complainant that the interest subvention was ending in October 2017, making her liable for pre-EMI/EMI from November 2017. This was contradictory to the agreed subvention period of 36 months. Despite the Complainant's attempts to seek clarification from both parties, the discrepancy remained unresolved. As a result, she had to borrow around Rs.20.00 lakhs from her relatives to prepay the EMIs. Being aggrieved with the unfair practices and service deficiencies, she filed the present complaint.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts, the Complainant has prayed as following two main reliefs-