NEW DELHI: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held DLF Gayatri Developers liable for the delay in completing a housing project and for holding onto the complainant’s hard-earned money for a prolonged period.
The bench, led by presiding member Bimla Kumari, ordered a refund of Rs 15 lakh along with costs for mental agony and litigation amounting to Rs 1.5 lakh. The bench observed that the company had no right to use or hold onto the complainant’s money and that it was the developer’s duty to arrange for labour for the project’s development.
The bench noted that the complainant paid approximately 75% of the amount within 11 months of booking until Sept 2013, and possession was only offered in 2019. The developer was held liable for the delay in completing the housing project.
In Oct 2012, the complainant applied for the allotment of a residential plot in the housing project of a Delhi-based company, Garden City of DLF Gayatri Developers, situated in Andhra Pradesh. A sum of Rs 1.2 lakh was paid as a booking amount, and the developer assured that possession would be delivered within 24 months from the date of booking.
By April 12, 2014, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs 14,66,304. However, upon personally visiting the project site, the complainant found no development work and pointed out some serious quality issues. In Dec 2017, he sent an email addressing the issues, but the developer failed to rectify them.
The complainant alleged that other home buyers had already been granted compensation, but the developer denied the same to him. A legal notice was issued by the complainant, but the issue remained unresolved, leading him to file a complaint before the Delhi State Commission in Jan 2020, seeking appropriate compensation.
The developer submitted that it could not be held liable as the delay occurred due to the Telangana movement in Andhra Pradesh and the time consumed in obtaining statutory approvals. The company also submitted that possession had already been offered to the complainant through a letter dated May 2, 2019. The firm argued that the complainant defaulted in making payments of instalments and refused to sign the allotment letter.
