Skip to main content

Builder liable to rectify faults in apartment: Consumer court

In a significant judgement that should help apartment owners, the top consumer court has directed a Ghaziabad-based builder and an official of an apartment block in Uttarakhand to "atone for their deficiencies" by rectifying defects in an apartment bought by two consumers or pay them over Rs.16 lakh in compensation cost for repairs and promised discount.

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Presiding Member J. M. Malik slammed Maa Jhande Wali Constructions and Anil Gupta, managing director of Ganga Residency Apartment in Uttarakhand's Tehri Garwal, for an apparently non-serious approach towards the complaint filed by the flat owners and staying away to delay the proceedings in the subordinate consumer fora.

 Malik, in a recent order, offered a breather to aggrieved flat owners Parth Prathim Saha and Pankaj Roy, both residents of Tripura, and noted: "On merits, the counsel for the (builder and Gupta) admitted that they are ready to rectify the deficiencies in the apartment which was sold to the purchasers."

 Rejecting the builder's and the apartment official's appeal against an Uttarakhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order that was in favour of Saha and Roy, Malik said: "The case of the petitioners is found to be at sixes and sevens and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."

 Malik said the case of the builder and Gupta is that in February 2012 the latter suddenly fell ill and, therefore, could not appear before the district forum. He also could not inform his counsel and consequently, the forum proceeded ex-parte against them.

 "I am not impressed by the explanation advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There is no medical Certificate which may go to depict that Anil Gupta fell ill in February, 2012, and remained sick till May 5, 2012, July 28, 2012, Oct 8, 2012 and April 5."

 "According to him, he remained sick for 14 months. There is not even an iota of evidence which may go to bolster his case. The petitioners have failed to prove day-to-day delay. Their pleas are vague, evasive and lead the commission nowhere," Malik said.

 Upholding the deficiency of service complaint of Saha and Roy, the national commission said: "The district forum has already ordered that builder and Apartment officials were to rectify the defects as mentioned in... the complaint or pay Rs.15 lakh to the complainant as cost of repairs and also pay Rs.1.29 lakh towards the seven percent discount as mentioned in the brochure and Rs.2,000 towards litigation expenses."

 Malik said the state consumer commission dismissed the first appeal filed by the builder and the official on the ground that it was barred by a delay of 250 days.

 Pointing to the casual approach of the builder and Gupta, Malik said they did not care to file the application for condonation of delay that they gave "before the state commission. However, the order passed by the state commission gives all the necessary details of the application moved for condonation of delay".

 Saha and Roy filed a complaint against Maa Jhande Wali Construction and Gupta in 2011. 
The district forum passed an ex-parte order in favour of the flat buyer July 28, 2012. 
Aggrieved by the district forum's order, an application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed before the district forum by the builder and Gupta Nov 5, 2012. The application was dismissed April 5, 2013. Aggrieved by that order the builder and Gupta preferred an appeal before the state consumer commission which was dismissed May 8. Following this, the builder and Gupta moved the national consumer commission against the state consumer commission's decision in favour of Saha and Roy.
The builder and Gupta now have the option of moving the Supreme Court against the national commission's order.

Article referred: http://news.oneindia.in/2013/07/08/builder-liable-to-rectify-fault-in-apartment-consumer-court-1254574.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more