The Ludhiana Improvement Trust has been compelled to pay Rs 1 lakh for the 14-year delay in flat possession.

LUDHIANA: Ludhiana Improvement Trust (LIT) has been ordered by the district consumer disputes redressal commission to compensate a complaint Rs 1 lakh for not granting the complainant possession of an apartment even after 14 years.

The commission has directed the LIT to reimburse Hem Raj Kapila of Gill Road for the compensation within 30 days of receiving a copy of the judgment; if they don’t, they risk being further penalized by having to pay interest on the amount due, which will accrue at the rate of 8% annually from the date of the order until it is actually paid.

According to the complainant, on February 26, 2005, he submitted an application and paid Rs 1, 50,000 for the allotment of HIG 108 and HIG Super 54 multi-story semi-finished flats to be built in Rajeev Enclave, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, under the Self-Financing Scheme.

The opposing parties allocated HIG an apartment under the development project on April 29, 2005, the day of the flat allocation draw. He was required to pay the whole cost of the apartment in instalments totalling Rs 14,60,000 in accordance with the payment plan.

In relation to the apartment allotment, the opposing parties executed an agreement of sale dated June 21, 2006 in his favor. He paid Rs 2, 74,150 via demand draft dated October 4, 2005, which was returned due to the delay.

The postponement was then excused on May 2, 2006. The complainant went on to say that he paid the Rs. 2, 19,000 instalment dated September 7, 2006. He allegedly went back to deposit the draft and a banker’s check for Rs. 2, 19,000 dated March 7, 2007, but the opposing party’s official would not accept it.

After receiving a letter from the complainant, the opposing parties informed the complainant in writing on April 26, 2007, about a civil court stay on the apartments, which prevented construction from beginning.

On December 11, 2006, the executive engineer issued an order deferring the receipt of installments until additional orders were received. They also stated that they would provide a new installment schedule for deposit after obtaining the stay dismissed.

The complaint claims that he often went to the opposing parties’ office to request the issuing of a new installment plan and the possession of the apartment that was given to him, but he was never successful.

The plaintiff added that just 21 of the 162 flats that were supposed to be built under this scheme—including his own—had their construction suspended by opposing parties as a result of court orders. Of the 141 flats that remain, 95 have been turned over to their respective allottees, leaving only 46 empty.

The complaint attempted to turn over control of the apartment to the opposing parties, as did a few other allottees who were suffering as a result of the OPs’ negligence, carelessness, and lack of service, but to no avail.

The plaintiff was, nevertheless, prepared to pay the remaining amount in installments, provided that a new schedule was issued and the apartment was delivered. The complainant served them with a legal notice dated June 12, 2020, but they did not respond.

Therefore, the complaint has requested that the opposing parties give him vacant possession of the apartment after accepting rescheduled payments for the remaining installments or grant the complainant an apartment in their other scheme under the same terms and conditions. It has also requested compensation in the amount of Rs. 2, 00,000 and reimbursement for Rs. 55,000 for legal fees.