Skip to main content

Consumer court awards Gurgaon flat owners Rs. 33cr for faulty elevators

In a landmark ruling, a consumer court has ordered realty firm Ambience Infrastructure to pay Rs. 33.38 crore to a group of flat owners in Gurgaon for installing sub-standard elevators and failing to maintain them despite charging them for it.

This gives hope to hundreds of thousands of home buyers, especially in the backdrop of Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday to Supertech to refund buyers of flats in its Noida twin towers, which now face demolition. In a country witnessing rapid urbanisation, the real estate sector remains largely unregulated and home buyers are often left to deal with builders who default on delivery of promises.

According to the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’s ruling, Ambience Infrastructure has to pay 66 apartment owners in Ambience Lagoon complex 70% of maintenance charges collected since November 2002 within 90 days. It also has to pay 9% interest per annum, taking the total to Rs. 33.38 crore.

“The judgment was delivered on March 19 and the commission has already rejected Ambience Infrastructure’s review petition. Since the builder hasn’t appealed this, the judgment now stands as final,” said Dr Amitabha Sen, counsel for the RWA and a resident of Ambience Lagoon.

The group, which fought the case for a decade, has filed an application in the commission for implementation of the judgment.

“As our legal team is handling this, I would not like to comment,” remarked Ambience Group chairman and managing director Raj Singh Gehlot.

In their petition, the residents said the builder advertised one “high-speed elevator” for every 10 homes — that is, four lifts in each of the four blocks and 16 in all. But in the end, each block only got two lifts.

Residents also complained that the elevators were of poor quality, and weren’t maintained.

“They were slow, prone to frequent breakdowns and had no automatic rescue device. In the absence of proper maintenance, there were dangerous instances of the lifts free-falling several floors or stopping a couple of feet above the landing, forcing residents to jump out. Many people were hurt using these lifts,” said Col (retd) SC Talwar, who led the residents in their legal battle.

“We pooled in money, everyone contributing Rs. 1.40 lakh each, to replace about 50% of the old lifts with new ones,” he added.

“There is not an iota of documentary evidence... that any action, work, payment, etc, was made to the maintainer of lifts, for the last more-than-a-decade. Why then are they charging such a huge amount towards maintenance,” the commission asked.

In its defence, Ambience submitted that it had made it clear at the start that it would install two lifts and the owners would have to install the remaining two.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gurgaon/consumer-court-awards-gurgaon-flat-owners-rs-33cr-for-faulty-elevators/article1-1246945.aspx

Comments

  1. In the event that you will remain in a flat on rent which is really an inn, at that point contingent upon the spending you will get plunge remain.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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