Skip to main content

Builder held liable for not delivering possession

Holding a construction firm guilty of "deficiency in service", Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has asked it to hand over possession of two flats to a purchaser or refund the money already paid with interest. 

The forum, comprising presiding member S R Khanzode and member S B Sawarkar, passed the order on an appeal filed by Mathew Varghese against S S Construction last week. 

It also asked the firm to pay Varghese Rs 50,000 as cost incurred for legal proceedings. 

Varghese had agreed to buy two flats in the firm's project in Nashik. Of the total Rs 9.69 lakh, he paid Rs 9.43 lakh, and the balance was to be paid while taking the possession. 

But the company did not execute the written agreement and failed to deliver possession, his complaint said. 

The company argued that it had demanded Rs 2 lakh as a part-payment in 2002, and since it was not paid by due date, it terminated the agreement by a letter dated February 10, 2004, asking Varghese to take back the money he had paid. 

The complainant denied having received any letter, saying he was not aware that the agreement had been terminated. 

The district forum held that Varghese should establish that he did not get any communication on termination. But the state forum disagreed, saying that "once the complainant denies having received any such communication, it is for the opponents to establish the said fact". 

The company failed to provide any proof about posting of the letter of termination, it said, adding that "under the circumstances, the agreement must be held as subsisting". 

If the company was not ready to hand over the possession, it should refund the amount paid with 24 per cent interest with effect from October 2008 (the date of filing of complaint), the state forum ruled. 

 Article referred : http://zeenews.india.com/news/maharashtra/builder-held-liable-for-not-delivering-possession_848065.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more