Mis Milan Bansal vs Jaypee Infratech Pvt Ltd on 14 September, 2022

CONSUMER COURT AS A SPECIAL COURT It was held in the case of Aftab Singh v Emaar MGF Land Limited &Anr., that the provisions of the arbitration act does not apply to the consumer courts, as they are the special courts set up for the public purpose. In this case, the group of the home owners filed the complaint against Emaar MGF Land Private Limited (Builder) before NCDRC. The complaint was filed for the non-delivering the plots to the buyers as per the Buyers' Agreement. The builder filed the application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on the basis of the arbitration agreement made between the parties which was mentioned there in the Buyer's Agreement.

In the light of above mentioned facts we have to see the latest judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble NCDRC in First Appeal no 380 of 2019 , Judgement dated 26.09.22 Jaiprakash associates Ltd Vs Deepti Kumar & two ors. In this case the matter rates to " Garden Isles" and in the present case the matter also relates to " Garden Isles" . Both these Isles are same and situated in JP Greens .Soit is clear that the Hon'ble NCDRC has dealt with one of the same matter and pronounced its judgement which is very important in the present circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble NCDRC has held in this case , "ThecomplainantstatedthatJaypeeInfratechLimited(respondent-2)andJaiprakashAssociatesLimited(theappellant)(hereinafterreferredtoasthebuilders)werecompanies,registeredunderCompaniesAct,1956andengagedinthebusinessofdevelopingandconstructinggrouphousingproject.Theylaunchedagrouphousingprojectinthenameof"GardenIsles"atJaypeeGreens,Sector-131&133,Noidaandmadewidepublicityintheyear2011.Alluredwithlucrativeadvertisementsandbelievingonit,thecomplainantappliedforaflatanddepositedtherequiredmoneyofRs.2.5/-lacson06.02.2012.ThebuildersprovisionallyallottedUnitNo.-GDI25-2103(superarea1205sq.ft.,BasicSalePriceofRs.4359690/-TotalConsiderationofRs.4898890/-,includingRs.2.5/-lacsforCarParkingSpace)on16.05.2012.Undertheallotmentletterdated16.05.2012,thebuilderspromisedtodeliverpossessionwithin42monthsfromthedateofallotment.Thebuildersprovidedsubventionscheme,underwhich,loanwasadvancedfromAxisBankLimited(oppositeparty-3).Aquadripartiteagreementdated29.06.2012wasexecutedbetweenthepartiesandAxisBankLimiteddirectlyadvancedRs.3889200/-on03.08.2012tothebuilders.ThecomplainantpaidRs.490000/-on18.06.2012,Rs.134233/-onRs.29.08.2012andRs.12847/-on28.03.2013(totalRs.4776280/-includingloanamount).The periodof42monthsexpiredon16.11.2015andgraceperiodof180daysasgivenunderClause-

"The Supreme Court, at the outset, reiterated the position taken in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, and held that "the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities". It further held that the power of the NCDRC extends to awarding compensation to consumers for misfeasance in the public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. Therefore, it upheld the appeals filed before it to the extent that it confirmed the jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award compensation in cases of service rendered by statutory & public authorities (the land development authorities in the present case).

So it is clear that the compensation and rate of interest shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be framed. In this connection some of the judgement of the Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC should be taken into account.

Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments