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

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...
7 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more