Skip to main content

Delhi builder ordered to return excess charges to elderly couple

A Delhi-based builder has been asked by the top consumer court to refund Rs 1.91 lakh charged in excess from an elderly couple, to whom the delivery of two flats in Gurgaon was delayed for 20 months on the ground that an electricity connection was lacking.

The delay by Today Homes Infrastructures amounted to deficiency in service, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said.

The national commission upheld the state commission's decision against the interest collected by the builder from the flat applicants, OP Ratra, 72, and his wife Harmeet, 68. Ratra and his wife booked two floors in the project of the builder's units bearing No 86 at the ground floor and the first floor, Blossom-II at Sector-51, Gurgaon. The two complainants totally paid Rs 66.88 lakh.

"In our observation, the builder claiming that he has right to charge interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum appears to be unjust and an exploitation of consumers. Hence, the builder charging interest of Rs 1.91 lakh was not proper and is an unfair trade practice," said commission Presiding Member JM Malik and Member SM Kantikar.

Hauling up Today Homes Infrastructures for delaying the delivery of possession of the flats by 20 months, the national commission said: "The complainants (couple) had paid the entire price of the units, the possession should be given with all amenities. The petitioner failed to do so, which is deficiency in service."

"The builder tried to cover up its deficiency by taking the plea that the delay was caused due to non-availability of the electricity by the electricity department and the possession could be taken without the electricity connection," the commission said.

"As the complainants are 72 and 68-year-old, the senior citizens suffered exploitation and inconvenience due to non-delivery of the flat within specified period of time and were made to run from pillar to post," the national commission said.

Upholding the state commission's decision against Today Homes Infrastructures, Malik said: "It is very clear from the documents on record that the (builder) had not given physical possession of the units to Ratra and his wife after 21 months from the date of agreement but the same was delivered after 41 months. Hence, the petitioner delayed the possession for 20 months. This is deficiency in service."

The builder was also pulled up for delay in filing the appeal in the national commission.

"We do not find any merit in this petition, as well there is unexplained delay of 87 days in filing this revision petition. There is no illegality in the order of state commission. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition," Malik said.

The builder has the option of challenging the national consumer commission's decision in the Supreme Court.

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