Skip to main content

Builder loses Rs 26.5L for not handing over Rs 3L flat

A builder will have to pay a Chembur resident Rs 23.8 lakh for not handing possession of a 680-sq ft flat booked for Rs 2.72 lakh in 1994. P K Constructions and its former partners will also have to pay the complainant, Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya, compensation of around Rs 6.5 lakh.

Kshatriya bought the flat in an upcoming housing complex known as Mahaveer Nagar in Mira Road. He paid Rs 2.72 lakh, along with Rs 35,320 towards maintenance charges, etc. Though the builder had agreed to grant possession soon, there was no development for several years.

Kshatriya alleged that he eventually learnt that in April 2009 the builder had demolished the building where the flat was situated and so the possibility of getting the flat vanished. In 2010, he filed a complaint in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, praying for either possession of the flat in the same project or any other project undertaken by the builder. Alternatively, he claimed compensation of Rs 23.8 lakh, the market value of the flat in 2010.

The two partners in the construction company filed their reply to the complaint and alleged that the firm was dissolved in 1999. The former partners contended that the building was demolished and the project handed over to another builder. The new builder had shown a willingness to make another flat available to the complainant and hence the complaint was premature.

But the commission said there was no agreement to show there was a willingness to make another flat available. "The new builder to whom the opponent had assigned the rights or sold the project is not a party before us. Under the circumstances, the deficiency in service to not hand over the flat agreed upon is well-established."

It said that since it was not possible to direct the builders to hand over possession, it was proper and just to consider the alternative relief. The commission directed both partners of the erstwhile firm to pay compensation to Kshatriya.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-06/mumbai/41130409_1_rs-6-5-lakh-builder-23-8-lakh

Comments

Most viewed this month

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...

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...

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.