Company to pay 8 years rent for delaying apartment ownership: The Tribune India
Tribune press service
Chandigarh, October 2
In an important judgment, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, penalized Nirvana Co-Op House Building (First) Society Ltd, Plot No. 48, for failing to cede possession of an apartment to a member, Asha Sharma , despite issuance of a non-contribution certificate (NDC). A company office was managed from his apartment.
Holding the company guilty of engaging in unfair business practices, the commission ordered it to pay Rs1 lakh as compensation to the complainant for causing her mental agony and harassment as well as litigation costs.
The commission also ordered the company to pay 10,000 rupees per month for a period of eight years from the issuance of the NDC (2009) until the date of possession (2017) of the apartment to the complainant.
In the complaint filed with the commission, Asha said that as a member of the company, she deposited Rs160,725 on January 31, 2008 to the management of the company as the main cost of land and money. of the lease.
The company did not issue any Certificate of Assessment (NDC) on June 24, 2009. It alleged that despite receiving all contributions and issuing an NDC in 2009, the company demanded Rs 1,20,712 on November 28. 2016.
She said she also deposited this amount. She alleged that the company had not ceded possession of the apartment despite her repeated requests. She alleged that the company illegally managed her office from her apartment from August 1, 2008 to January 1, 2011, without paying rent or charges, and delayed delivery of possession of the apartment. She sent the company a legal notice on July 5, 2018, but to no avail.
Kamal K Sharma, lawyer, filed the response on behalf of the company and denied all allegations. He said the complaint is time-barred. He argued that the dues were paid on December 31, 2009, while full and final payment was made by the complainant on October 25, 2016, and on the same day possession of the apartment was returned to her, and authorization for the mortgage has been given.
He argued that the plaintiff could not claim any rent, as alleged, because the apartment remains the property of the company until possession is given to a member.
After hearing the arguments and reviewing the files, the Commission, made up of its chairman Rajan Dewan and member BM Sharma, said the company remained seriously deficient in its services and engaged in unfair trading practices by belatedly delivering possession of the apartment.
Which consumer panel observed
The Chandigarh District Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission observed: “A buyer / plaintiff who paid his hard-earned money to have a house is not expected to wait long, especially after making the payment and issuing a certificate of payment. non-contribution. Therefore, the lack of service as well as the unfair business practices used by the PO (company) are clearly established, which not only caused financial losses to the complainants, but also caused them immense harassment and mental agony.