Skip to main content

Delhi builder ordered to return excess charges to elderly couple

A Delhi-based builder has been asked by the top consumer court to refund Rs 1.91 lakh charged in excess from an elderly couple, to whom the delivery of two flats in Gurgaon was delayed for 20 months on the ground that an electricity connection was lacking.

The delay by Today Homes Infrastructures amounted to deficiency in service, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said.

The national commission upheld the state commission's decision against the interest collected by the builder from the flat applicants, OP Ratra, 72, and his wife Harmeet, 68. Ratra and his wife booked two floors in the project of the builder's units bearing No 86 at the ground floor and the first floor, Blossom-II at Sector-51, Gurgaon. The two complainants totally paid Rs 66.88 lakh.

"In our observation, the builder claiming that he has right to charge interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum appears to be unjust and an exploitation of consumers. Hence, the builder charging interest of Rs 1.91 lakh was not proper and is an unfair trade practice," said commission Presiding Member JM Malik and Member SM Kantikar.

Hauling up Today Homes Infrastructures for delaying the delivery of possession of the flats by 20 months, the national commission said: "The complainants (couple) had paid the entire price of the units, the possession should be given with all amenities. The petitioner failed to do so, which is deficiency in service."

"The builder tried to cover up its deficiency by taking the plea that the delay was caused due to non-availability of the electricity by the electricity department and the possession could be taken without the electricity connection," the commission said.

"As the complainants are 72 and 68-year-old, the senior citizens suffered exploitation and inconvenience due to non-delivery of the flat within specified period of time and were made to run from pillar to post," the national commission said.

Upholding the state commission's decision against Today Homes Infrastructures, Malik said: "It is very clear from the documents on record that the (builder) had not given physical possession of the units to Ratra and his wife after 21 months from the date of agreement but the same was delivered after 41 months. Hence, the petitioner delayed the possession for 20 months. This is deficiency in service."

The builder was also pulled up for delay in filing the appeal in the national commission.

"We do not find any merit in this petition, as well there is unexplained delay of 87 days in filing this revision petition. There is no illegality in the order of state commission. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition," Malik said.

The builder has the option of challenging the national consumer commission's decision in the Supreme Court.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil