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

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...

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...

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...