Dedicated locality research platform
Dedicated locality research platform
Enter your email address and you will receive
a link to reset your password
A woman from Gurugram filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Panchkula, alleging that she had been allotted a residential plot in Sector-57, Gurugram, but had later discovered that it was under litigation and not available for possession. The woman had paid Rs 19.40 lakh for the plot in 2009, but when she inspected the site in 2010, she discovered that her plot was under litigation and not clear for possession.
The Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) officials offered her another plot in a different sector, which she refused to take as it was of lesser value compared to the original plot and in a location that was not as desirable. The woman had waited for more than 14 years and despite making the entire payment of the plot, she was still empty-handed. She lodged a complaint against HSVP, alleging that they had caused mental harassment by not issuing the original plot that was promised to her.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after observing the case, directed HSVP to issue the allotment letter in favour of the complainant of the original plot and not charge any extension fee, surcharge, or penalty on account of non-construction of the plot until the offer of possession is made to her. The panel also asked HSVP to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for causing mental harassment.
The HSVP officials argued that an alternative plot in Sector-50, Gurugram, had been offered for exchange, but the complainant refused to take the plot nor the refund amount as per HSVP policy. However, the panel observed that the offered plot was not acceptable to the complainant, as the location of this plot was not as good as compared to the original plot and it was of lesser value. The panel also noted that a plot-holder cannot be made to wait indefinitely.
The case highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in real estate transactions. It is important for authorities to ensure that properties are free from litigation and available for possession before allotting them to buyers. In cases where there are issues with the property, buyers should be offered suitable alternatives or refunds promptly. Delays and misinformation can cause financial and emotional distress to buyers, and it is the responsibility of authorities to prevent such situations.
In conclusion, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's ruling is a welcome relief for the complainant, who had been struggling for years to get the plot that she had paid for. The ruling sends a strong message to real estate authorities to be more diligent in their dealings and ensure that buyers are not subjected to unnecessary delays and harassment. It is important to remember that real estate transactions involve significant investments for buyers, and authorities should strive to make the process as smooth and transparent as possible.
Propscience is India’s dedicated property news portal. We cover the latest events, news, trends, deals, new launches and more.
All our services and tools are completely free of cost and available 24X7!
