COMPENSATION AWARDED FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT

TILL THE DATE OF ORDER/REALISATION

1. Sandeep Lohia and Ors v. Parsvnath Developers, Complaint Case

No.34/10, Dated 20th December 2014

Facts:  Mr. Sandeep Lohia and others (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Complainants’) booked a flat with Parsvnath Developers
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Builder’), pursuant to which a Flat Buyer
Agreement was entered into between the parties on 01.05.2006.

The Complainants were assured that possession of the Flat would be

delivered within a period of 36 months under the Flat Buyer
Agreement. However, even after expiry of 36 months, there had
been no progress at the site. Thereafter, the Complainants
approached the Commission filing a complaint against the Builder.

Held:  The Commission held that the Builder has clearly committed a
default. It had been more than 7 years since Flat Buyer Agreement
was executed and possession of the Flats had still not been handed
over to the Complainants. The Commission held that the Builder’s
actions amounted to “unfair trade practices”. 

Compensation Paid: The Commission directed the Builder to refund

the principal amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the date
of its deposit till date of this Order and to pay compensation of Rs.
4,50,000 to each of the Complainants for causing harassment and
mental agony. The said amounts were payable within a period of 30
days from the date of the Order failing which the Builder was liable
to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amounts.

2. Nidhi Kumar v. Supertech Limited Complaint No. 94/09  Dated

17th October, 2014

Facts:  Mrs. Nidhi Kumar and her husband (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Complainants’) booked a flat in the project of Supertech Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Builder’) on 27.11.2007 with the
agreement that the construction of the flat would be completed
before March 2009.

However, in the second half of the year 2008, the Complainants were
informed that the date of delivery of the flat was extended to March
 31, 2010 and they were only entitled to compensation @ Rs.5/- per
sq. ft. per month for the period of delay in delivery of possession.
Aggrieved by the activities of the Builder, the Complainants filed a
complaint with the Commission

Held:  The Commission held that the Builder had admitted that the
possession of the flat was to be delivered before March 2009.
However, construction of the project stood left mid-way when the
Complaint was filed and even during course of trial the Builder
had not offered to deliver possession. The failure of the Builder to
hand over possession amounted to an ‘unfair trade practice’.

Compensation Paid: The Commission directed the Builder

to refund of money paid with interest @18% per annum on the
money advanced by the Complainants from the date of deposit till
the date of its realization.

3. Nameesh Miglani v. JMD Promoters Complaint No. 53 of

2011 Dated 31st July 2012

Facts:  Mr. Nameesh Miglani (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Complainant’) booked a flat with JMD Promoters (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Builder’), pursuant to which, a Flat Buyer’s
Agreement was executed on 22.7.2006 between them.

The Complainant alleged that although the Builder slowed down the
construction, he continued to demand payments as per the payment
schedule agreed under the Buyer’s Agreement. The project was to be
completed within 3 years, but the Builder failed to complete the
project even after the expiry of 4 years and flats had not been
handed over to the owners till date of the Order.

Held: The Commission found the case of the Complainant was

genuine. The Builder had cancelled the allotment of flat of the
Complainant and had refunded the amount without the
Complainant’s consent.

Compensation Paid: The allotment was to be reinstated and

compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment
and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation was awarded in favour of the
Complainant.
4. Premium Acres Infrastructure Private Limited v. Permanent Lok
Adalat (Public Utility Service), Mohali and Ors, CWP 14724 of 2016

Facts:  The allottees (being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Allottees’) booked a flat with Premium Acres
Infrastructure Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the
“Builder”) and entered into an agreement regarding the same.

As per the terms and conditions of the agreement possession of the

Flat was to be delivered by 3rd August 2013. Further, in case of failure
on the part of the Builder to timely deliver possession of the flat, the
Allottees were entitled to Rs. 7,000/- per month on account of
default. The Builder delayed the delivery of possession of the flat
and therefore the Allottees moved an application to the Permanent
Lok Adalat, whose order was in favour of the Allottees. The Builder
then appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the
order of Permanent Lok Adalat.

Held:  The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the order of the
Permanent Lok Adalat was valid and within the confines of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and therefore the award in favour
of the Allottees was therefore, upheld.

Compensation Paid: The High Court upheld the award of the Lok

Adalat, according to which the Builder was ordered to  refund the
initial sum deposited by the Allottee, along with interest of 9% per
annum from the date of the deposit, wherein the interest was to be
calculated upto the date of realization. Additionally, the Builder
was ordered to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month according to the
agreement between the parties; Rs. 1,00,000/- for non-delivery; Rs.
15,000/- as litigation expenses, all of which were to be paid within 45
days. Failing this an additional interest of 9% per annum was to
apply on the total amount, from the date of the award.