Skip to main content

Unitech to reimburse rent to buyer for delay in giving flat - NCDRD

Realty major Unitech Ltd has been directed by the apex consumer commission to reimburse nearly Rs 14 lakh spent by a customer on rent after the flat for which he paid over Rs 1.37 crore in 2007 was not handed over to him till date.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also pulled up the real estate major and its top officials, Executive Chairman Ramesh Chandra and Managing Directors Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, saying "even after lapse of six years the flats are not ready".

"It is clear that the opposite parties (Unitech and its officials) want to have benefit of both the worlds. They have received the entire price of the apartment at the time of execution of the agreement. Even after the lapse of six years, the flats are not ready.

"The opposite parties have offered peanuts for delaying construction of work. They have to honour their commitment," a bench headed by Justice J M Malik said, giving six months time to Unitech to hand over the flat in one of its residential townships in Gurgaon to Sanjay Goyal.

The bench said that after the period of six months is over, Unitech will have to pay Rs 25,000 for every additional month of delay in handing over possession and awarded Gurgaon resident Goyal Rs 50,000 as compensation.

The NCDRC also directed Unitech to reimburse the rent of Rs 42,500 per month from October 2010 to August 2012 (Rs 9.35 lakh) and Rs 50,000 from September 2012 to May 2013 (Rs 4.5 lakh) paid by Goyal.

The commission also directed the real estate company to pay the current rent of Rs 50,000 per month being paid by Goyal for the time it takes to hand over possession of the flat.

In his complaint, Goyal alleged that he had in September 2007 paid Rs 1,37,89,069 to Unitech for a flat in one of its housing projects 'Harmony' at 'Nirvana Country' residential township in Sector 50, Gurgaon, Haryana and as per the buyers agreement he was to get possession of the unit by September 2010.

Till date the possession had not been handed over to him, Goyal had said.

Unitech had offered to pay Goyal Rs 7.5 per square feet as holding charges for the delay in handing over possession or to refund entire amount paid by him with interest of 15 per cent, but he had refused to settle, the NCDRC noted.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Unitech-to-reimburse-rent-to-buyer-for-delay-in-giving-flat/articleshow/20407924.cms

Comments

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...

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...

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...