Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (2.83 seconds)Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015
It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, 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 the opposite parties that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here, that the complainant 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, the opposite parties were liable to deliver physical possession of the developed unit, within a period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(ii) of the Agreement. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-
Haryana State Agriculatural ... vs Bishamber Dayal Goyal & Ors on 26 March, 2014
From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes 'service' within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can also be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection of the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. & Anr. vs Dilshad Gill on 27 May, 2015
The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, because in the instant case, the complainant had sought refund of the amount deposited, the forfeiture Clause will attract, as envisaged in the Agreement. The Agreement was executed between the parties, on 21.07.2011. As stated above, according to Article 4.a(i) of the Agreement, the opposite parties, were to hand over physical possession of the unit, in favour of the complainant, within a period of 18 months, and not later than that, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), complete in all respects. Admittedly, possession of the unit, was not even offered to the complainant, by 20.01.2013 i.e. by the stipulated date, what to speak of delivery thereof, as still the development work was going on and the opposite parties, are still trying to provide the basic amenities at the site, as has been admitted by them. Had the development work been complete and had the amenities, complete in all respects, been provided, in respect of the area, where the unit of the complainant was situated, by the stipulated date and had the opposite parties, offered possession to the complainant, but, on the other hand, he (complainant) had sought refund of the amount deposited, the matter would have been different. In that event, it would have been held that since the complainant rescinded the contract, as such, forfeiture clause contained in the Agreement would be applicable. However, in the present case, possession of the unit, in question, was not even offered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, or even till date, as such, it was justifiable for the complainant to seek refund of the amount deposited without application of forfeiture Clause. It was so said by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). In the above case, possession was not delivered in time. Complaint was filed for refund of amount paid. The State Commission partly allowed it. The builder was allowed to forfeit 10% of the deposited amount, on the ground that the complainant himself rescinded the contract by asking refund of the amount, as possession of the unit had already been offered to him. The remaining amount was allowed to be returned with interest. The complainant in that case was also awarded litigation cost etc. The builder namely Emaar MGF Land Limited went in appeal, which was dismissed, wherein it was specifically observed by the National Commission, that when the promoter/builder has violated material condition in not handing over possession, in time, it is not obligatory for the purchaser to accept possession after that date. The principle of law laid in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. On account of that, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited by him, without application of forfeiture clause. The submission of Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same 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 complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.69,61,831/-, i.e. more than about 90% of the sale consideration, was paid by the complainant, 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). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, to the tune of Rs.69,61,831/- alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits (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.