Skip to main content

Builder to pay Rs 40 lakh for flouting development deal

The Maharashtra State consumer disputes redressal commission in a significant order held that not delivering flats under a development agreement to a landowner amounts to deficiency in service and require the developer to either hand over possession of the flats or compensate for the loss. The State commission on Tuesday set aside a 2011 order of a Sangli district forum and directed a developer to pay Rs 10 lakh, the price of the flat, each to four persons within two months or with 9 % interest if paid later.

A district forum passed a similar order in connection with a flat in Powai.

In the order passed by State commission president Justice R C Chavan and member Dhanraj Khamatkar, it said since no flats were available the developer was directed to pay the price of the flat as compensation.

The case dated back to a development agreement of 2004 between co-owners of a land with Balaji Construction in Sangli to construct a residential and commercial complex and hand over six flats of 450 sq ft super built-up area to the land owners Anusayabai Sakate, Pramod Sakate, Mandakini Dethe, Vilasini Chopade, Suhasini Lokhande and Vinod Sakate and an amount of Rs 3 lakh to mother of the co-owners. The developer handed over only two flats and hence the dispute arose.

The developer did not appear before the district forum nor did he appear before the state commission despite being served. The district forum had dismissed the complaint against the developer since the flats were no longer available.

The commissions said the developers "miserably failed to handover possession of the flat.'' It amounts to deficiency in service it said and added, "even if the flats were unavailable, the District Forum should have granted compensation—the value of the land as per the ready reckoner. It failed to take into consideration this important fact.''

In the second case, filed thorough the Consumer Welfare Association of India, Kalwa resident had accused Powai Housing Development Pvt Ltd of not handing over a flat booked in 1983. The flat buyer S B Dhas, alleged that he had booked the 520 square feet flat in an upcoming building and paid Rs 26,000 in five installments. 15th May, 2002. Dhas however, received a letter on May 15, 2002 telling him that the building was not constructed due to litigation pending before the Bombay High Court since 1993. When he sought a refund, he got no response from the construction company. Dhas then filed the complaint before Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 2010.

Granting his plea for a refund with nine percent interest from the date of the last payment in 1986, the form ordered the company to pay him a compensation of Rs 1.05 lakh. "The fact remains that the complainant is deprived from his flat due to litigation. The Opponent received payment from the complainant. The Opponent is responsible for the litigation. Therefore, the Opponent is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the suffering of the complainant," the forum said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Builder-to-pay-Rs-40-lakh-for-flouting-development-deal/articleshow/38585911.cms

Comments

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/

'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...

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...