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

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