Skip to main content

Unscrupulous builders should not be spared: NCDRC

The apex consumer commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a real estate developer against a direction to pay nearly Rs 65 lakh to two persons who had jointly booked a flat in its project, saying "unscrupulous" builders who take to litigation "to cover up their faults" should not be spared.

A bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NDCRC), also imposed punitive damages of Rs five lakh on the builder Emaar MGF Land Ltd, out of which Rs 2.5 lakh would be given to the buyer as compensation and Rs 2.5 lakh to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of the commission.

The bench pulled up the builder for filing an appeal against Chandigarh State Consumer Commission order and said it was well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless appeal in different foras.



"Unscrupulous builders like appellants who after taking almost the entire cost of the plot, do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of builders that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters," a bench presided by Justice VB Gupta said.

The bench passed the order on the appeal of the builder challenging the state commission's decision of directing it to refund Rs 62,60,750 to the complainants along with interest, to pay Rs two lakh compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to them and a cost of Rs 20,000 to them.

A complaint was filed by Chandigarh residents Karnail Singh and his son Harmeek Singh, submitting that they had booked a plot in the builder's 'Mohali Plots at Mohali Hills' project in Sector 104, Mohali by paying a booking amount of Rs five lakh on February 12, 2011.

The builder had assured them that development activity at the site was in full swing and if they booked the plot, the possession would be given to them within 18 months from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement, it said.

It said the basic price of the plot was Rs 55 lakh and apart from this, the buyer had to pay Rs 6,87,500 towards Preferential Location Charges (PLC) plus additional charges.

After some discount, Singhs had to pay Rs 65,30,250 towards the plot. After taking a loan from a bank, Singhs paid Rs 62,60,750 i.e. about 95 percent of the sale consideration to the builder while the remaining five per cent amount was to be paid at the time of getting physical possession of the plot, the complaint said.

It said when the builder failed to give the possession of the plot by the stipulated date i.E. May 21, 2013, Singhs visited the site and found that there was no development in the area, in which the plot was allotted.

The builder, in its defence, contended before the tribunal that development activities in the Sector in which the plot was allotted were in full swing and delivery of physical possession of plots was likely to be given in the near future, at the most by middle of 2014.

The builder claimed that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service on its part nor did it indulge in unfair trade practice.

The NCDRC bench, however, said the builders were not sure as to by which date they will be able to give the possession of the plot to the complainants and after grabbing 95 per cent of cost of plot, they are sitting over it.

"Moreover, the appellants (builder) by not delivering the legal physical possession of the fully developed plot to the respondents (Singhs) till date, even after having received more than 95 percent of the price thereof, are not only deficient in rendering service but are also guilty of indulging into unfair trade practice," it said.

It added that such type of unscrupulous act on the part of builders should be dealt with heavy hands as after grabbing the money from the purchasers, they enjoy and utilise their money but do not hand over the plot on one pretext or the other.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/unscrupulous-builders-should-not-be-spared-ncdrc_951029.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf