Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Aashish Oberai vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 14 September, 2016
Further in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015 decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder while holding as under:-
Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. & Anr. vs Dilshad Gill on 27 May, 2015
It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date.
Dlf Universal Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi Gupta on 15 February, 2016
Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316.
Rajesh Malhotra & 3 Ors. vs M/S. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 20 May, 2016
18. The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, since the complainant sought enforcement of the Agreement, in respect of the immovable property, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the opposite parties, for purchasing a plot, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of opposite parties, they were to deliver physical possession of the plot, within a maximum period of 30 months, as explained above, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), with complete basic amenities, as provided in Clause 22.4. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-
Haryana State Agriculatural ... vs Bishamber Dayal Goyal & Ors on 26 March, 2014
19. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint could be filed by the complainant(s), before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him. In the instant case, it is evident, that the payment receipt (Annexures C-2) and provisional allotment letter (Annexure C-3), placed on record, were issued by the Chandigarh Office of the opposite parties, as the same bore the address "SCO 6-7-8, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh". Not only as above, as per Clause 29 of the Agreement, address of the Company for communication and notices is also found mentioned as "SCO 6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009 (India)". Since, 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 parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
M/S Narne Constructions (P) Ltd., vs 1. Dr.Devender Sharma S/O Sri ... on 8 August, 2013
31. The aforesaid pleas taken by the opposite parties, claiming force majeure circumstances, referred to above, also deserve rejection, in the face of case titled as Ramesh Chander and another Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Private Limited, CC No.99 of 2014, decided on 29.04.2015, qua this very project, decided by the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula. In that case also, almost similar excuses were given by the opposite party, for not starting development at the site and non-delivery of possession of the unit, to the purchasers, which were rejected by the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, by observing as under:-
Union Of India Tr.Dir.Of I.T vs M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd on 26 February, 2014
24. It is to be further seen, as to whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited alongwith interest, if so, at what rate? It is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.15,66,200/- was paid by the complainant, to the opposite parties. 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 @15% p.a. as per Clause 7.2 of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of installments. 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). The complainant have made a prayer for refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest @15% p.a., till realization. In our considered view, the request made for, by the complainant, @15% p.a. is on the higher side. If interest @13% p.a., on an amount of Rs.15,66,200/-, is granted, that will meet the ends of justice. (Above rate of interest is less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties for delayed payment i.e. 15% P.A.). Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple) from the dates of respective deposits.