Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.35 seconds)Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
M/S Emerging India Real Assets P Limited vs Kamer Chand on 9 February, 2016
Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
Aashish Oberai vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 14 September, 2016
It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is unable to deliver possession of the developed plot, in question, for want of development/construction, basic amenities etc. and still firm date of delivery of possession of the plot, could not be given to the complainants. It was only stated that the opposite party is making efforts to deliver possession of the plot, in question. Even the photographs placed on record by the opposite party itself reveal that still it will take a long time for completing the development work. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by them. The opposite party, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the plot. Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation in providing service, on the part of the opposite party. It is 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 (in the present case possession not offered by the opposite party, though claimed to be offered but no document in that regard has been placed on record) and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 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:-
Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-Operative vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors on 11 December, 2003
"In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.