Skip to main content

No compensation for delay in delivery of flats purchased for commercial purpose

A person who is involved in purchasing and selling of flats for profits, he does not fall within the purview of “consumer” and is not entitled for compensation from the construction firm for delay in handing over possession of the flats, observed NCDRC while rendering relief to a construction firm. The Commission was hearing a revision petition filed by Magrath Property Developer challenging the order of Karnataka State Commission vide which the order of District Consumer Forum passed in favour of the Complainant was upheld. Earlier, Complainant had booked six flats in the project floated by Magrath Property Developer and alleging delay in possession of the said flats, he approached District Consumer Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and Magrath Property Developer was directed to pay Rs 8,86,347 as interest, Rs 1 lakh as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost to the Complainant. In appeal filed by the Construction Firm, State Commission upheld the order of District Consumer Forum. In its defense, the Firm contended that the Complainant had purchased six apartments in the project and had sold five apartments and generated profit, hence he does not fall within the purview of “consumer”. After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant documents, NCDRC observed that, “There is nothing on record that complainant booked six flats to accommodate all his family members and Learned State Commission without any basis assumed that flats were booked for his family members. Had it been so, he would not have sold five flats and generated profit. But, it is admitted fact that complainant booked six flats, so, he does not fall within the purview of “consumer.” While holding that once complainant does not fall within the purview of “consumer”, District Forum committed error in allowing the complaint filed by him, NCDRC set aside the orders of State Commission and District Forum, [Magrath Property Developer v. A.S.Veeranna, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 16, decided on June 26, 2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/07/10/no-compensation-for-delay-in-delivery-of-flats-purchased-for-commercial-purpose.aspx

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