Skip to main content

DLF ordered to pay Rs 6 lakh to buyer in failed project

Real estate firm DLF has been asked to pay Rs 6 lakh to a man, who had booked a flat in its project which failed to take off, by a consumer forum here which held it guilty of deficiency in service and "unfair trade practice".

"...we hold opposite party (OP) guilty of deficiency and unfair trade practice in not refunding the deposit. We direct OP to return Rs 5 lakh...and pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh for harassment, deficiency and litigation expenses," New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, said.

It noted that it was one of the many cases against the construction company with regard to its failed project and directed DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Pvt Ltd to pay the money to Gurgaon-based Ashesh Nanda.

The forum's bench, also comprising member S R Chaudhary, held that once the project has failed, there is no question of consumer being forced to continue with booking for such a project as it was "only imaginary castle building".

"This forum has already in number of cases of this project of opposite party has ordered refund of provisional deposit, after holding that once the project has failed, there is no question of consumer being forced to continue with booking for such a project for lay off... The provisional booking without anything moving forward in reality is only imaginary castle building and unfair trade practice," the forum said. Nanda had told the forum that he had made provisional booking in company's New Town Heights project in Gurgaon by depositing Rs five lakh on March 31, 2008.

The company denied the allegations saying that the exit option was not available to Nanda as he had not deposited a part of his payment.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/DLF-ordered-to-pay-Rs-6-lakh-to-buyer-in-failed-project/articleshow/40725897.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more