Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
M/S. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd.& Anr vs N.K.Modi on 20 August, 1996
12.
Section
3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that
the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of
any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of Arbitration Clause
No.53, in the document, aforesaid, would
not oust the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of the provisions of
Section 3 of the Act. Similar principle
of law, was laid down, in Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi (1996)
6 SCC 385= III (1996)
CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I. Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs
Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233= III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC). In this view of the matter, the
submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, must
fail, and the same stands rejected.
Cci Chambers Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd vs Development Credit Bank Ltd on 29 August, 2003
17.
No
doubt, a period of two years, could be extended due to force majeure
circumstances. It was for the Opposite
Party, to clearly explain, in the written reply, as to what were those
circumstances, which were beyond its control, as a result whereof, the
construction of the showrooms, could not be completed, in time, and possession
could not be delivered by 28.02.2008. In
the written reply, the only plea taken up by the Opposite Party, was to
the effect, that other buyers, like the complainants, of the showrooms, in the
same project, did not make the payment of
installments, in time, as a result whereof, there was delay in the
completion of project. No evidence, in this regard was, however,
produced by the Opposite Party. It may be stated here, that the complainants,
in this case, have already deposited a huge amount of Rs.41,24,931/-, referred
to above, towards the part price of showroom. When the complainants found that
there was no progress, in the construction of project, at the site, it was not
obligatory upon them, to pay the remaining installments, until a firm assurance
had been held out to them, that the project would be completed, in the very
near future. As stated above, till date,
the project has not been completed, nor possession of the showroom has been
delivered to the complainants. Since, the Opposite Party failed to adhere to
the terms and conditions, for the allotment of commercial showrooms, in the
said project, it could not blame the complainants, for not making the payment
of remaining sale consideration/ installments. Since, the construction was not
being undertaken, as per schedule, if the complainants did not pay the remaining
installments, they could not be held responsible for delay, in the completion
of project. The Opposite Party, therefore, failed to prove any circumstance,
beyond its control, due to which the construction was delayed.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 17 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
1