Chandigarh, November 28
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited for delay in handing over of a commercial apartment in Fashion Technology Park to a Sector-10 resident.
The forum, comprising president PD Goel and, members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota, observed: “It is established on record that as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, the opposite parties have failed to deliver the possession, as agreed upon. Moreover, Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited (opposite party No. 2) has offered the “buyback option” to the complainant, which was accepted by him vide letter on April 6. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the agreed terms and conditions.” The district forum also directed the opposite party to pay Rs7.5 lakh to the complainant besides Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.
The complainant, Manish Jakhar, averred that he had executed “developer buyer agreement” with the opposite party No. 1 pertaining to industrial zone to set up a techno-knowledge park for fashion technology — “Industrial Knowledge (Fashion Technology) Park — on a piece of land measuring 13.74375 acre situated at Sector 90, SAS Nagar.
He said as per the agreement, the he was assured a lease rental income of Rs 30,000 per annum subject to maximum of Rs 45,000 per annum per unit to be paid on monthly basis by way of accounts payee cheques.
He said the opposite parties failed to start the construction and ultimately offered to purchase the unit for Rs 7.50 lakh from him. The offer was applicable after 30 months from the date of start of construction.
Thus, the complainant exercised the “buyback option” on April 6. However, the opposite party did not pay the agreed amount under the option.
The opposite parties, in their joint reply, took the preliminary objection that as per term 22 of the developer buyer agreement on December 29, 2006 any disputes arising between two parties to the agreement were to be referred to the arbitrator, hence the complaint was not maintainable.
Further, the opposite party No. 2 had no role in delivering the possession of the unit to the complainant. It was pleaded that the total sale consideration of the unit was Rs 5 lakh.
They also denied that the buyer had paid a lump sum of Rs 4.75 lakh and in that case, Rs 25,000 would be exempted.
It was also pleaded that as per the letter on December 29, 2006, the complainant had to communicate the acceptance in writing within 30 months from the date of the letter but they never received any request from the complainant.
No comments:
Post a Comment