Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
Vikram Jain vs M/S. Today Home & Infrastructure Pvt. ... on 13 November, 2019 cites

Emaar Mgf Land Limited & Anr. vs Amit Puri on 30 March, 2015

18.     No material has been produced by the Opposite Party to prove that the completion of construction and offer of possession has been delayed on account of reasons beyond its control; there is no justification for the said delay. Keeping in view the judgment of this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors.  vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down that after the promised date of delivery, it is the discretion of the Complainant whether he wants to accept the offer of possession, if any, or seek refund of the amounts paid with reasonable interest, it is held that it is well within the Complainant's right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation as construction is still not complete. We are of the view that the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on force majure clause while retaining the amounts deposited by the Complainant, is not only an act of deficiency of service but also amounts to unfair trade practice, especially in light of the view of the fact that the Opposite Party charges interest @ 18% p.a. for any delay in the payments made by the flat purchasers, but at the same time, offers compensation of Rs.5/- per sq. ft.  per month of the super area for the period of delay, which approximately amounts to only 1.5% per annum. We are of the view that such terms in Clauses are extremely unfair and one sided and fall within the definition of 'unfair trade practice' as defined under Section 2(r) of the Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 3 - Cited by 124 - Full Document

Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016

The second contention of the Opposite Party that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint is unsustainable in the light of the larger bench decision of this Commission in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [CC/97/2016 & allied matters decided on 07.10.2016]", wherein it was held that pecuniary jurisdiction should be construed keeping in view the total value of goods and services in addition to the compensation prayed for. In the instant case admittedly the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.74,47,932/- and has sought for damages by way of interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and other reliefs which totals to beyond Rupees One Crore and definitely attracts the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The stand taken by the Opposite Party that the period of delivery of 36 months as defined in clause 21 is not sacrosanct as it is stated in the said clause that "physical possession of the said unit is proposed to be delivered by the Company to the allottee within 36 months" and, therefore, time is not the essence of the contract and the delay is attributable to force majure events, and, therefore, no deficiency of service can be attributed to them, is totally unsustainable, as the Opposite Party could not substantiate by means of any documentary evidence  that the project was hit by force majure events. Except for stating that there were disputes with the contractors and non availability of raw material, which viewed from any angle, cannot be construed to be a "force majure event", the Opposite Party has not filed any material on record to prove that there were any force majure events beyond their control. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that the Complainant delayed the payments and did not pay as per the Construction Linked Payment Plan and, therefore, the construction was delayed and the Complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong doing, that the construction itself is not complete,  this submission of the Opposite Party is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when it is seen from the record that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.79,13,462/-, the Complainants  have already paid an amount  of  Rs.74,47,932/-.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 589 - Full Document
1