The National Consumer Court has ordered the real estate company to refund the money to the home buyer | So Good News

The National Consumer Court has ordered Godrej Projects Development Limited to refund with interest all the money owed by the buyer of a house in Godrej Summit in Sector 104, Gurgaon due to lack of services, including fixed water, electricity and sanitation. a chemical plant, and not to build a 24-meter highway as the builder said in the brochure.

The Consumer Court, in its order of October 21, ruled that the real estate buyer Rajiv Singhal was entitled to return his money because the uncertainty in the construction of the road and the lack of services put the distributors of the project “at a disadvantage”.

Mr. Singhal, represented by advocates Piyush Singh and Aditya Parolia, said he booked a share in the Godrej Summit project in March 2014 and paid more than ₹ 51.26 lakh. He said that the Apartment Buyers Agreement (ABA) was executed between him and the company in October 2015, and his share should be handed over to them after 41 months with a grace period of six months.

In 2017, Mr. Singhal moved the consumer court with a complaint that he was given a “defect” for not constructing the 24 meter highway within the stipulated time of 41 months from the date of the letter issued.

Since the company did not construct the road, when Mr. Singhal asked for a full refund, the real estate company canceled the reservation of his share. He then filed a fresh complaint in the consumer court.

On the other hand, the real estate company said that it is not responsible for building any development outside its premises. It said that the construction of a 24 meter road connecting the construction work to Dwarka Expressway should be done by the local authorities.

The consumer court said that because of the picture of the 24-metre highway outside the project area leading to Dwarka Expressway in the brochure, it “became” a very important factor for prospective buyers to book the project’s units in the belief that. such communication shall be in place after the completion of the work”.

Regarding the shortage of fixed water, electricity and sewage treatment facilities, the consumer court said that Sehgal’s complaints were “genuine” as they were being filed at present. random only until the authorities make a regular plan to supply such equipment regularly by establishing proper infrastructure.

The consumer court said that Mr. Sehgal was “entitled” to seek the return of his deposits and the Realty firm’s decision to stop the allotment was invalid. It also ordered the real estate company to pay ₹25,000 in legal costs to Mr. Sehgal.