Skip to main content

NCDRC asks construction firm to pay over Rs 1 crore to doctor

The apex consumer commission has asked a real estate company to pay over Rs one crore to a doctor for its failure to give him possession of an apartment, saying that it was making profits at the expense of others.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, asked Mumbai-based Orbit Corporation Ltd to pay Rs 1,17,11,340 to a doctor, holding that this was a case of unfair trade practice.

The company had rejected the doctor's claim seeking refund of his money and compensation, citing delay due to several problems which cropped up in the process.

The bench, also comprising its member S M Kantikar, said, "We are unable to countenance all these feckless arguments. One must know the significance of a home. It is well said: Home, the spot of earth, supremely blest; A dearer, sweeter spot, than all the rest...

"It is difficult to fathom, why the consumer should suffer for his (company) deliberate inaction, negligence and passivity. It is clear that Opposite Party (OP) succeeded in its attempt to feather its own nest, i.E., to make profits for itself, often, at the expense of others."

It said, "As the firm is unable to give the premises in dispute, therefore, it is directed to return the sum of Rs 1,16,11,340 to the complainant...With litigation charges in the sum of Rs one lakh."

Dr N Y Kachawalla had told the commission that he had paid Rs 1,16,11,340 to the company in 2009 for an apartment in Mumbai, but despite repeated requests it did not give him the possession while it had assured it will be given by August, 2013.

He claimed that after he demanded the interest for the pending period, the company refused to pay so and also to refund the amount paid by him.

 Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ncdrc-asks-construction-firm-to-pay-over-rs-1-crore-to-doctor_953823.html

Comments

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more