Skip to main content

No house cost escalation after dues paid, possession taken'


A builder cannot seek additional money from a house allottee who has paid all dues and taken possession on the ground that the cost calculated at the time of handing over the property was tentative, the top consumer court has ruled.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Presiding Member V.B. Gupta and Member K.S. Chaudhari said if the builder failed to justify the need for demanding extra money, a house owner could not be forced to shell out the additional amount even if he had given an affidavit to the builder agreeing to accept a cost escalation in the future.

The commission gave the consumer-friendly interpretation of the law while dismissing the Ghaziabad Development Authority's (GDA's) appeal in a case related to Satya Narayan, a house owner in Indirapuram.
"The price could have been escalated only on the ground of increase of payment of compensation for the land acquired but learned counsel for the GDA admitted that compensation has not been increased. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to increase the price of the house," the consumer court said in a recent order.

"No doubt an affidavit was given by Narayan on April 15, 1997, stating that if in future the cost of the house is increased, he will deposit the same in accordance with the rules. Learned counsel for the GDA could not show any rule on whose basis the price was increased," said Gupta.
The GDA moved the national commission while challenging an order of the Uttar Pradesh consumer commission in favour of Satya Narayan, who sought a refund of the additional money demanded by the authority and deposited by him under protest.

The national commission said: "It is an admitted fact that the house was allotted to Narayan at the estimated cost of Rs.5.50 lakh. This amount was to be deposited by him in instalments up to Oct 15, 1998, whereas he deposited the entire amount by July 15, 1997, and obtained possession of the house."

Narayan complained that after three years and three months of the house allotment, the GDA asked him to deposit an additional Rs.1.95 lakh, stating that the price at the time of allotment was only tentative.

The national commission said: "The state commission has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal of the GDA and in such circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the GDA is dismissed with no order as to cost."

For the GDA, an appeal against the national commission's decision now lies in the Supreme Court.
Narayan said in his complaint that after giving him the possession of the house, the GDA "neither fixed a brick nor put a nail in the premises but demanded money and, under compelling circumstances", he deposited the money.

He then filed a complaint in the district forum seeking the refund of the additional amount of over Rs.1.95 lakh that he had deposited under protest.

The forum ruled in favour of the house owner and the decision was upheld by the state consumer commission Oct 20, 2010.

The GDA took the defence that as per the affidavit given to it by Narayan, he was bound to deposit the increased cost of the house.

It claimed that the district forum and the state consumer commission erred in allowing refund of the over Rs.1.95 lakh to Narayan.

Article referred : http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2013/05/21/20--No-house-cost-escalation-after-dues-paid-possession-taken-.html

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