Sector 111 Society Plot Buyer Wins Refund Over Delay सेक्टर 111 सोसाइटी प्लॉट खरीदार ने देरी पर रिफ़ंड जीता ਸੈਕਟਰ 111 ਸੁਸਾਇਟੀ ਪਲਾਟ ਖ਼ਰੀਦਦਾਰ ਨੇ ਦੇਰੀ ਉੱਤੇ ਰਿਫੰਡ ਜਿੱਤਿਆ

In October twenty eleven, a Chandigarh resident joined a welfare society that was selling plots in a township called The Sky Rock City, in Sectors one hundred and eleven and one hundred and twelve of Mohali. He was told the plot would be his within two years. Fifteen years later he has no plot. On the eighth of October twenty twenty six, a district consumer forum in Chandigarh ordered the society and its president to return his money with interest.

The Tribune reported the order on the thirty first of October. This piece reads the order itself, which is published on the national e-Jagriti portal, along with an earlier order against the same society. The society is named here as it appears in the order, Sky Rock City Welfare Society. The buyer and the society's office bearers are not named.

How the plot was sold

According to the complaint as the order records it, the buyer saw newspaper advertisements inviting applications for plots in the project. He became a member of the society and paid a first deposit in October twenty eleven. He said the society and its president told him they held all the approvals they needed from the state government and from GMADA. They promised possession within two years of registration.

The same month, the society issued a letter provisionally allotting him a residential plot in the second part of the project. He then paid in instalments whenever the society asked, with the last payment in June twenty thirteen. No plot was handed over. He later learnt from GMADA's website that the society's licence had been cancelled. He filed his complaint in August twenty twenty one and asked for the plot or, failing that, his money back.

The society did not turn up

The society and its president were both served and neither appeared. The forum proceeded against the president in his absence from June twenty twenty three, and against the society from September twenty twenty four. That left the buyer's account unanswered.

The order treats this as decisive on the facts. Because the two did not appear, it drew an adverse inference against them. It held that the buyer's allegations, being unrebutted, were accepted as correct. His payments were proved from the receipts he filed.

What GMADA told the forum

GMADA was the third opposite party in the case, and it was the only one that defended it. It said it had charged the buyer nothing and had received no money from him. It argued that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between them, so the complaint against it could not stand.

GMADA also told the forum that the licence granted to the society had been cancelled by the competent authority by an order of the seventh of May twenty eighteen. It said the cancellation followed violations of the licence conditions and a number of complaints. Every transaction and agreement, it said, was between the buyer and the society.

The forum found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice proved against GMADA. It dismissed the complaint against the authority, with no costs. The order does not examine whether the society ever held the approvals it claimed. The buyer said the licence was cancelled. GMADA confirmed it and gave the date.

Why the forum ordered a refund

The buyer had asked first for the plot. The forum said it could not give him one. It found no allotment letter or buyer's agreement on record from which a specific plot could be traced to him. In that situation, it said, an order to hand over possession would only complicate matters. The order does not explain how that finding sits with the provisional allotment letter described in the complaint.

The forum relied on a decision of the national consumer court in Surekha Pal against Manohar Infrastructure and Construction. There, the national court said there was "no scope" to pursue an allotment of a unit the developer did not have when no allotment letter was on record. The district forum held that the facts were the same and ordered a refund with interest, which the buyer had sought in the alternative.

It then gave a second, independent reason. It cited the national court's ruling in Sanjiv Kumar Jain against Lodha Crown Buildmart. That ruling holds that an inordinate delay in offering possession is a deficiency in service. It also holds that a home buyer can ask for a refund "on this ground alone". Once an unreasonable delay is proved, the ruling says, other grounds "are not liable to be examined". Here possession was promised within two years and had not come in more than a decade.

Why a complaint filed ten years later still counted

The complaint was filed close to ten years after the first deposit. The forum held that the delay did not defeat it. Because a fully developed plot was never offered and the money was never returned, it found a continuing cause of action in the buyer's favour. It relied on two national court decisions. One is KNK Promoters and Developers against S N Padmini, and the other is Saroj Kharbanda against Bigjo's Estates. Both hold that a builder cannot hold on to an allottee's money, and that while it does, the right to seek a refund continues.

What the order directs

The society and its president are to refund everything the buyer paid. Interest runs from the date of each payment. They are also to pay a lump sum as compensation for mental agony and harassment, which covers the costs of the case too. They have forty five days from receiving a certified copy of the order to comply. After that, the amount carries interest at a higher rate from the date of the order until it is paid. The order found deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice against the society and its president.

This is not the first such order

e-Jagriti lists at least ten final orders of Chandigarh's district consumer forums in complaints against the same society, starting in twenty sixteen. We read one other in full. In October twenty twenty four the city's first district forum ordered a refund with interest to another member who had booked a larger plot. That order records a GMADA public notice of February twenty seventeen, filed by the buyer as evidence. According to that order, the notice cautioned the public against buying property in any of the society's projects. The same order describes the society as having booked more plots than were approved.

For anyone who joined a society to buy a plot in these sectors, the October order shows how this forum approaches the question. The order treated a buyer who paid a society for a plot as a consumer of its services, even though he was formally a member. A long delay in possession can be enough on its own to win a refund. Where the society has gone quiet, the buyer's unanswered account can carry the case.

What the order leaves open

The order is a single decision of a district forum, passed without the society in the room. Either side could appeal to the state forum. It does not decide anything about other members, and it does not say whether the society has any money or land from which the award could be recovered. Getting paid would depend on execution proceedings, which are a separate stage. GMADA is not liable under this order, so the buyer's claim runs against the society and its president alone.

Related reading

- Housing societies around Mohali and who approves them
- When a Mohali builder ignores a consumer order, how enforcement works
- When an allotted Mohali plot turns out unbuildable
- A Mohali developer jailed after ignoring a refund order

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece describes one order of a district consumer forum and the decisions it relied on. Nothing here is legal advice, and the position of any other member of the society depends on its own papers and payments.