Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015
In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose.
Dlf Universal Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi Gupta on 15 February, 2016
Another objection was raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, that the dispute being related to contractual matter, the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the opposite parties, for purchasing the unit, in the manner, referred to above. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, physical possession of the constructed unit, was to be delivered by the opposite parties, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. latest by 28.11.2014 alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(ii) of the Agreement. There is a breach of terms and condition of the Agreement, on the part of the opposite parties, which act amounted to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-
Haryana State Agriculatural ... vs Bishamber Dayal Goyal & Ors on 26 March, 2014
It is not in dispute that the opposite parties have failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period or even till date. As stated above, except two connected complaints, referred to above, wherein the complainants have sought refund of amount paid alongwith interest, the complainants in consumer complaint bearing no.186 of 2017 have sought refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest, as per Clause 4 (e) of the Agreement.
State Of Punjab vs Nohar Chand on 17 May, 1984
"It is clearly mentioned that the Company has its Marketing Office at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Registered Office is situated at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Be that as it may, as per documents placed on record by the opposite party, alongwith written statement, it becomes apparent that Marketing Office at Chandigarh/opposite party was responsible for development and marketing of the project, in question. Entire correspondence with the Authorities qua development of the project and getting necessary permissions were being taken up by the Officers of the opposite party, posted at Chandigarh. Above fact makes it clear that the Branch Office at Chandigarh was substantially taking up the activities qua the project, in question. Copy of customer ledger account Annexure C-25 in respect of the unit, in question, was also issued by the opposite party at Chandigarh. In para no.1 of the preliminary submission, it is also mentioned that Marketing Office of the Company is situated at Chandigarh. Besides all above, it has been candidly admitted by the opposite party, in para no.24 of its reply on merits, that that all the payments were received from the complainant by Chandigarh Office of the Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand, 1984 SCR (3) 839 held that the Court(s), in whose Jurisdiction, products/goods are marketed, will have the territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of fact of Marketing Office of the opposite party at Chandigarh and also as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the opposite party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected."
M/S Emerging India Real Assets P Limited vs Kamer Chand on 9 February, 2016
As far as the liability of opposite parties no.1 and 2, is concerned, it may be stated here that once it has been proved on record that opposite parties no.1 and 2 were necessary parties to the Agreement; they also admittedly marketed the project, in question; and had also received payments from the complainants, towards the said unit, as such, they are equally liable alongwith opposite party no.3, to refund the amount paid by them (complainants). Not only as above, the National Commission, in a case titled as Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.765 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016, has held that even the marketing agency, who sells out a project, if found deficient, at any stage and the project is not complete, as per commitment made, has to face the consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. As such, the objection raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, to the effect that they being only confirming parties are not liable to refund the amount paid by the complainants, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
Union Of India Tr.Dir.Of I.T vs M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd on 26 February, 2014
It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainants, if yes, to what extent. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.9,45,060/- was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @18%) as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). No doubt, under similar circumstances, while ordering refund of the amount deposited, this Commission has been awarding refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, but, since in consumer complaint bearing no.186 of 2017, the complainants themselves have sought interest @10% p.a. on the amount paid i.e. as per Clause 4 (e) of the agreement, as such, we are inclined to grant such rate of interest. In such circumstances, it is held that the complainants in the said complaint are entitled to refund of the amount paid alongwith interest @10% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, as prayed for by them. However, in the remaining two connected cases, bearing nos. 249 of 2017 and 256 of 2017, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, ( less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties, in case of delayed payment i.e. 18% compounded quarterly, as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement), till realization.
Aashish Oberai vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 14 September, 2016
As stated above, even at the time of arguments, no commitment was made to deliver possession of the unit, in near future. Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation on the part of the opposite parties. It is a settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:-