LUDHIANA: The district consumer disputes redressal commission has imposed a penalty on an infrastructure builder for failing to deliver the possession of a flat to the buyer. The commission has mandated Green Space Infraheights Private Limited, based in Panchkula, Haryana, to refund ₹12.42 lakh—the amount paid by the complainants—along with interest at 12% per annum from the dates of deposit until actual payment, within 30 days of receiving the order. Additionally, the company is required to pay ₹20,000 as composite costs to the complainants, Monica and her son Ishaan Shingari, who reside in Ludhiana’s Kichlu Nagar.
According to the complaint, the builder initiated a project in the affordable housing segment named Green Space in Billah village, Sector 14, Panchkula, authorized by a license dated August 14, 2014, and building plan approval on December 9, 2014. The builder invited applications for unit allotments for this 5-acre project and assured timely delivery to the applicants. Based on this assurance, the complainants applied for an allotment and paid ₹75,600 for registration on March 29, 2019. They continued payments upon the builder’s request, totaling ₹12,42,150, which the builder acknowledged in a letter on September 21, 2020, as well as in a receipt dated October 17, 2020.
After submitting their payments, the complainants sought possession of the unit but were unable to secure it, nor did the builder show them any allocated unit. The project remains unfinished, prompting the complainants to send multiple reminders and letters for the possession, all to no avail. They reported experiencing significant mental distress and harassment due to the builder’s inadequate service. Ultimately, they sought directives for the builder to either deliver the unit or refund the amount of ₹12,42,150 with interest at 24% per annum, in addition to ₹1 lakh in compensation.
A notice regarding the complaint was delivered to the builder, who failed to appear, leading the commission to proceed with the case ex parte. Upon reviewing the documentation, the commission concluded that the complainants were entitled to compensation due to the builder’s unfair trade practices and service deficiencies.
