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

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