Skip to main content

Consumer court awards Gurgaon flat owners Rs. 33cr for faulty elevators

In a landmark ruling, a consumer court has ordered realty firm Ambience Infrastructure to pay Rs. 33.38 crore to a group of flat owners in Gurgaon for installing sub-standard elevators and failing to maintain them despite charging them for it.

This gives hope to hundreds of thousands of home buyers, especially in the backdrop of Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday to Supertech to refund buyers of flats in its Noida twin towers, which now face demolition. In a country witnessing rapid urbanisation, the real estate sector remains largely unregulated and home buyers are often left to deal with builders who default on delivery of promises.

According to the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’s ruling, Ambience Infrastructure has to pay 66 apartment owners in Ambience Lagoon complex 70% of maintenance charges collected since November 2002 within 90 days. It also has to pay 9% interest per annum, taking the total to Rs. 33.38 crore.

“The judgment was delivered on March 19 and the commission has already rejected Ambience Infrastructure’s review petition. Since the builder hasn’t appealed this, the judgment now stands as final,” said Dr Amitabha Sen, counsel for the RWA and a resident of Ambience Lagoon.

The group, which fought the case for a decade, has filed an application in the commission for implementation of the judgment.

“As our legal team is handling this, I would not like to comment,” remarked Ambience Group chairman and managing director Raj Singh Gehlot.

In their petition, the residents said the builder advertised one “high-speed elevator” for every 10 homes — that is, four lifts in each of the four blocks and 16 in all. But in the end, each block only got two lifts.

Residents also complained that the elevators were of poor quality, and weren’t maintained.

“They were slow, prone to frequent breakdowns and had no automatic rescue device. In the absence of proper maintenance, there were dangerous instances of the lifts free-falling several floors or stopping a couple of feet above the landing, forcing residents to jump out. Many people were hurt using these lifts,” said Col (retd) SC Talwar, who led the residents in their legal battle.

“We pooled in money, everyone contributing Rs. 1.40 lakh each, to replace about 50% of the old lifts with new ones,” he added.

“There is not an iota of documentary evidence... that any action, work, payment, etc, was made to the maintainer of lifts, for the last more-than-a-decade. Why then are they charging such a huge amount towards maintenance,” the commission asked.

In its defence, Ambience submitted that it had made it clear at the start that it would install two lifts and the owners would have to install the remaining two.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gurgaon/consumer-court-awards-gurgaon-flat-owners-rs-33cr-for-faulty-elevators/article1-1246945.aspx

Comments

  1. In the event that you will remain in a flat on rent which is really an inn, at that point contingent upon the spending you will get plunge remain.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...

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...

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.