Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Sample flat in Mrs. Anita Aggarwal vs M/S Sushma Buildtech Ltd., on 25 April, 2017Matching Fragments
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
Present: Mrs. Anita Aggarwal and Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, complainants in person.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER In brief, the facts of the case, are that believing the version of the Opposite Parties and the sample flat shown, the complainants booked a residential apartment i.e. duplex Penthouse No.B-1202 on 12th Floor in Tower B measuring 1910 sq. ft;. (super area) with terrace area in the project of the Opposite Parties, namely, Sushma Elite Cross, located at Gazipur, M.C. Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab, basic sale price whereof was Rs.50,19,950/-. Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.07.2012 (Annexure C-3) was executed between the parties. The complainants obtained housing loan of Rs.35 Lacs from Bank of India, Chandigarh and Tripartite Agreement dated 06.08.2012 (Annexure C-4) was executed. Payments were to be made directly to the Opposite Parties based on construction linked payment plan. The complainants paid a total amount of Rs.51,70,594/- including service tax and late payment penalty interest (Annexure C-5)_. It was stated that allotment letter was handed over on 09.08.2011 whereas one sided Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed on 10.07.2012. It was further stated that as the complainants are residing in rented flat and paying rent to the landlord, they requested the Opposite Parties to hand over the flat but did not get any satisfactory answer. It was further stated that in the month of December 2015, the complainants again asked for possession and also gave written request for change in their address. It was further stated that vide email dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure C-6), the Opposite Parties requested the complainants to shift to another commercial project 'Infinium' or another residential project 'Sushma Grande' and further committed assured return in the shape of 12% p.a., which was unfair trade practice on their part.