Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Consumer Complaint in Sate Commission

Last Updated on March 1, 2020 by Legalseva.net

In this post we are going to discuss the most recent consumer complaint decided against the builder namely Omaxe Chandigarh Extension decided on 10.09.2019 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Chandigarh.

Let’s break the entire judgment and get straight to facts:

Party Name – Alka Khera, Dheeraj Dumir CC/62/ of 2019,

Date of Decision– 10.09.2019

Court Name – State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Chandigarh.

Date of Institution –18.03.2019

Facts:

Unit Description – Plot No. OCE/11/4/790A, 199.13 sq. Yd. New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, Distt. SAS Nagar/

Cost – Rs. 48,62,807/- total paid, 56,27,778/- is total price from opposition.

Date of Possession – 12.10.2017 (30 Months (24+6 months)) clause 35(a) of BBA.

Bank Loan – Yes, from SBI Tripartite Agreement Dated 13.04.2015

Delay Compensation – SBI will have the first charge on the payment

Prayers

Refund of Rs. 48,62,807/- along with 12% p.a. from respective dates of Deposit within 30days or else it will be 15%.

Cases Referred– Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Another vs. Krishan Chander Chandna – Builder to show status & development of project. (Refer Appeal No. 873 of 2013, DOD – 29.9.2014)

Reply by Respondent}

Does not fall under definition of consumer as own house is in Sector 16 PKL.

Partial completion – 24.04.2019

Time not essence of Contact and Saturday, Sunday, Bank Holidays to be excluded.

Time Barred and default in Payments.

Application of forfeiture clause

Evidence Lead:

Clause 3(2)g of PAPRA Talks of Date in agreement. Chapter II

Judgments Quoted:

Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Others. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016 on 7.10.2016. NCDRC Pecuniary Jurisdiction

17(2)(a) & (c), Since the Ops were having regional office in Chandigarh and cause of Action accrued as Receipts were issued from this office.

Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, buyers presumed to be consumer unless purchased for commercial purpose.

Award –

Refund of amount Rs. 48,62,807/- along with 12% interest per annum.

2 lacs for Mental Pain & Harassment

35k for litigation cost within 30days. After with interest of 12%

Also referred Supreme Court Judgment-

                Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghanvan, Civil Appeal No.12238, DOD on 2.04.2019 Homebuyer can’t be compelled to take possession.

For case specific advice, contact best consumer real estate lawyer advocate of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar.

For more, connect with 99888-17966.