Skip to main content

State consumer body refuses to help ‘ignorant’ flat purchasers


Refusing to grant relief to, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rapped three “ignorant” flat purchasers for not getting the necessary information before making the payment.

The three paid a total of Rs. 53 lakh to a developer, Terrain Infrastructure Private Limited, for booking three flats at Vakola in Santacruz (East). They moved the consumer commission after the builder failed to give them possession.

 “These complainants are well-educated and not illiterate persons and certainly they are well aware about provisions of law,” the bench of presiding member Dhanraj Khamatkar and member Narendra Kawde said.

 “None of these complainants have produced the receipts issued to them by the opponents [developer] against the payments made,” the bench said. “Before parting with such huge amounts, the complainants should have insisted on receipts.”

Two of the complaints, Ghatkopar resident Karishma Lalwani and Byculla resident Dr Bhawarlal Jain had paid Rs. 35 lakh and Rs. 9 lakh respectively against total consideration of Rs. 50 lakh for a flat each admeasuring 771 sqft in Terrain Heights at Vakola.

The third complainant, Lamington Road resident Sushil Jain, had paid initial amount of Rs. 9 lakh out of total consideration of Rs. 45 lakh for a flat admeasuring 661 sqft.

They moved the consumer commission last year alleging deficiency on part of the developer and sought direction to the developer to handover the flats and consequent compensation for the delay.

The consumer commission, however, found that two of them had booked flats on the 7th and 9th floors, which were illegal. The commencement certificate granted by the civic body was meant for construction up to sixth floor.

“It was their [complainants] duty to find out whether or not the opponents had requisite permission to construct a particular floor,” the commission said. “Instead of believing the verbal representation, the complainants should have asked for this information and the documents and only thereafter they should have parted with the money.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more