A realty firm has been directed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pay Rs 4.55 lakh each to buyers for not handing over four flats in its project in 2006, saying they “paid their hard-earned money” and “their dream of having a house is shattered”.
The Commission, comprising its judicial member N P Kaushik and member Salma Noor, passed the order while rejecting a number of appeals filed by Dreamland Promoters and Consultant Pvt Ltd against directions of a district consumer forum.
The Commission upheld the district forum order asking the firm to pay Rs 4 lakh each to Delhi resident Pushkal Yadav and Ahmedabad resident Virender Singh Yadav, and Rs 8 lakh to Gurgaon resident Lt Col Jaswant Singh Yadav for not delivering two flats which he had booked.
In its order, the forum had also asked the firm to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigations to each of the flat owners.
“From the year 2006 till date, a lot of water has flown down the Ganges. Prices of real estate have gone through the roof. Since 2006, cost of construction has escalated,” the state commission said.
“Respondents (consumers) have paid their hard-earned money to the appellant (firm). Their dream of having a house is shattered,” it said, while upholding the forum’s order.
The commission said that firm had made a futile attempt to wriggle out of the agreement.
According to consumers’ complaint filed before the forum, they had separately booked flats at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) by depositing Rs 4 lakh as advance in 2006 and 2007 and the properties were to be allotted within 12 months from the date of application.
However, no allotment was made by the firm even after three years of submission of the applications and, thereafter, the complainants demanded refund of advance money.
Later on, they approached the forum seeking refund of the amount, they had said in their complaints.
The firm, however, submitted before the forum in all the complaints that relevant clause of the agreement relating to refund of the advance money along with interest was not a part and parcel of the agreement