Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)Ravi Kant Mahajan & Anr. vs M/S. Unitech Ltd. on 3 May, 2016
Before making any reference to the merits of the case, we will like to decide an objection raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, it is not open to this Commission to entertain and adjudicate this complaint. It may be stated here that as per Section 17 (1) (a) of the Act, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any complaint, complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. It was also so elucidated elaborately by a Large Bench of the National Commission in the case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
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, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have 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 them, as they fall, within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 4, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
M/S. Karwa Developers & 3 Ors. vs Shree Vinayak Co-Operative Housing ... on 3 March, 2017
The above objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 4 is also bereft of merit, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, titled as M/s. Karwa Developers & 3 Ors. Vs. Shree Vinayak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & 3 Ors., First Appeal No. 980 of 2016, decided on 3rd March, 2017, wherein, a similar plea of the builder was negated, while holding as under:-
Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishan Chander Chandna on 29 September, 2014
Even otherwise, not even a single convincing document has been placed on record, by opposite parties no.1 to 4 to prove that the unit, in question, is habitable or that the development at the project is complete in all respects. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite parties no.1 to 4. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, it is very strange that not even a single document has been placed on record, by opposite parties no.1 to 4, in respect of the flat, in question, to prove that the construction is complete and they are actually ready for offer and delivery of possession. In case, all the development activities had been undertaken and construction of the flats is complete at the project site, then it was for opposite parties no.1 to 4, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development and construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but they failed to do so. At the same time, opposite parties no.1 to 4 were also required to produce on record, a copy of the occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authorities, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove their case, but they miserably failed to do that also. Mere placing on record an application dated 03.02.2016, allegedly sent to the Competent Authorities, seeking completion certificate in respect of the project, in question, is of no help to opposite parties no.1 to 4.
Aashish Oberai vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 14 September, 2016
Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 4. At the same time, it is also 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 said by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar M GF Land Limited, Consumer Case N o . 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:-
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. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.20,77,718/- was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by opposite parties no.1 to 4, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, opposite parties no.1 to 4 were charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @18% per annum) 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 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 opposite parties no.1 to 4, in case of delayed payment i.e. 18% compounded quarterly, as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement), till realization.