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

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