FARIDKOT, PUNJAB — In a significant verdict underscoring the rights of property investors, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the Faridkot Improvement Trust to refund ₹13.16 lakh to a consumer, citing a “gross deficiency in service” after the Trust failed to develop a residential project for over ten years.
A Decade of Broken Promises
The case centres on Surjit Kaur, who in 2013 invested in a 200-square-yard plot (Plot No. 95) under the Trust’s “Baba Jeevan Singh Nagar” scheme. Despite paying the total consideration of ₹13.16 lakh, Kaur was left waiting for more than a decade as the site remained largely undeveloped.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that essential infrastructure—including electricity and water pipeline networks—had not been installed, rendering the land unfit for habitation long after the promised timeline had elapsed.
State Commission Enhances Relief
While the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had initially ruled in favour of Kaur on November 28, 2024, the complainant appealed to the State Commission, seeking more equitable financial terms.
The State Commission bench, presided over by Justice Daya Chaudhary and including members Simarjot Kaur and Vishwa Kant Garg, modified the lower court’s order to provide more comprehensive relief. The key mandates of the final ruling are:
-
Full Refund: The Trust must return the entire principal amount of ₹13.16 lakh.
-
Back-Dated Interest: The Commission ruled that the 9% annual interest must be calculated from the respective dates of deposit, rejecting the Trust’s preference for calculating interest only from the date of the complaint filing.
-
Enhanced Compensation: Recognizing the “mental agony and harassment” endured by the complainant, the bench increased the compensation for mental stress and legal costs to ₹40,000.
Setting a Precedent
In its judgment, the State Commission cited Supreme Court precedents to affirm that an interest rate of 9% is appropriate for compensatory awards in real estate disputes.
Legal observers note that this ruling serves as a stern reminder to government-run improvement trusts that they are not exempt from the standards of service mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. By linking interest payments to the date of deposit, the Commission has reinforced the principle that investors should not be financially penalized for the prolonged inaction of development authorities.
Leave a Reply