Singla Builders & Promoters (SBP) Consumer Complaint in State Commission Punjab

Singla Builders Promoters SBP Consumer Complaint in State Commission Punjab

by

Last Updated on March 4, 2020 by Legalseva.net

In this post we are going to discuss the most recent consumer complaint decided against the builder namely Singla Builders & Promoters (SBP) decided on 10.04.2018  by  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Chandigarh

Here is a particular case where consumer preferred consumer complaint against SBP whose facts are shared below:

  • Party Name – Usha Rani Bhatt
  • Date of Decision – 10.04.2018
  • Court Name – State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.
  • Date of institution – 19.07.2017
  • Facts of Case
    1. Description of Unit – One Flat no. 178/1, Chaggumajra Kharar, Mohali on 06.05.2011.
    2. Total Cost – Rs. 36,20,000/-
    3. Date of Possession – 31.3.2013, on or before.
    4. Clause 10 of BBA – but given on June, 2016
    5. Bank Loan – YES
    6. Delay Compensation as per BBA
      1. Rs.3/- per sq.ft. X 1810 sq.ft. = Rs. 5,430/- per month X 38 months = 2,06,340
  • Prayers:
    1. Interest to bank – Rs. 6,00,163/-
    2. Litigation cost – 1 Lac
    3. Delay interest – 2,06,340/-
  • Defence by Respondent
    1. False & misconceived to harass OP
    2. No consumer dispute
    3. Complaint abuse of Process of Law
    4. –Bad for misjoinder & non-joinder of parties
    5. Force Majeure due to ban on mining-work by APEX Court
  • Evidence Head – Ex. CA/Ex. C-1 to C- , Ex. OP-A & Ex. OP-1
  • Judgements Quoted (NCDRC)
    1. Hitish Ramji Javeri vs. Macroteh Construction Pvt. Ltd. I (re18) CPJ 218 (No effort to bring sand & gravel)
    2. CC no. 427 of 2014 (NCDRC0) Satish Kumar Pandey & Another vs. M/s Unitech Pvt. Ltd. DOD – 8.6.2015 relating to one-sided clause in agreement.
    3. Cc no. 347 of 2014 NCDRC Swarn Talwar & Ors vs. Unitech Ltd. Decided on 14.08.2015
  • Award:
    1. Interest w.e.f. from 01.04.2013 to 14.06.2016 @ 10.5% pa.
    2. 30k for physical & Mental harassment, possession during pendency
    3. 21k litigation expenses

Also Read- Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Consumer Complaint in Sate Commission

There have been numerous cases filed against SBP Builder for delay in possession in Consumer Courts across Tricity and where builders have failed to honor the obligation to deliver possession on time, courts have ordered refund along with interest.

Though SBP is one of the most promising builders of Tricity and it’s been a hard challenge for them to complete projects on time amid strict government compliance’s and legal changes.

Order to be complied within 45 Days. Rest Remedies under Section u/s 25 & 27 of CPA Act will pursue in case of non compliance of the order.

For Case Specific Advice, One can connect with TOP/BEST/EXPERT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, Haryana Advocate Lawyer.

For more Info, Dial 99888-17966.

Call Us