Compat passes order in case related to flat booked 25 yrs ago

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Aug 20 2015 | 5:07 PM IST
Passing an order in a case related to a flat booked over 25 years ago, the Competition Appellate Tribunal has ordered realty player Suneja Towers to refund Rs 4.5 lakh along with interest.
At present, the individual, Gursharan Kaur -- who had booked a flat of the developer in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, way back in 1989 -- is no more.
"The present one is also a case in which the third generation of Gursharan Kaur, who had booked the flat in 1989 in the building proposed to be constructed by Suneja Towers Pvt Ltd has been prosecuting the complaint for last more than eight and a half years," Compat chairman G S Singhvi said in an order earlier this month.
The tribunal noted that the complainant and her legal representatives have been subjected to harassment "for the period of more than 25 years".
"If the building had been completed within three years as promised by the respondents, the complainant may have got possession thereof and utilised the same.
"She could not do so during her lifetime and her legal representatives have been compelled to pursue this litigation," it said.
According to the order, construction of the flat was delayed by more than one decade and the amount of installments deposited by Gursharan Kaur and the complainant totalling Rs 4,53,850 was retained by the respondents for a period ranging from 15 years to more than 12 years.
In the 49-page order, Singhvi said he felt that "ends of justice would be served by directing respondents to pay compound interest of 15 per cent per annum to legal representatives of the complainant".
The respondents have been directed to pay Rs 4,53,850 along with compound interest within a period of three months.
The compound interest of 15 per cent per annum would be calculated on each installment paid by Gursharan Kaur and the complainant from the date of deposit till April 30, 2005 -- the day when the allotment was cancelled.
Between August 1989 and October 1993, Gursharan Kaur and the complainant had deposited Rs 4,53,850 in the form of installments.
"The respondents not only failed to complete the project within the stipulated time but also failed to return the installments deposited by Gursharan Kaur and the complainant.
"The amount was returned only along with the cancellation letter and, as mentioned above, the complainant had returned the pay order with the legal notice sent on September 7, 2005," the order said.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 20 2015 | 5:07 PM IST

Next Story