Skip to main content

Firm to pay Rs 2L punitive damages for merit-less petition

The apex consumer commission has rejected a construction company's appeal with punitive damages of Rs two lakh, saying it was a "merit-less petition" and such "unscrupulous" litigants must be dealt with a "heavy hand".

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice V B Gupta, made the observation while dismissing the appeal of True Zone Buildwell Pvt Ltd against an order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had upheld a district consumer forum's order, asking the company to provide the apartment to a man.

NCDRC noted that the company had taken Rs two lakh from one Bhoop Singh in year 2006 for an apartment, without disclosing the area, location and plot number etc. And later on cancelled the allotment.

It said 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 merit-less pleas in different foras.

"Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants, whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of fruits of the decree, must be dealt with a heavy hand. Unscrupulous builders like the petitioner, who after taking booking amount of the plot do not perform its 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," the bench said.

It held that the present petition was nothing but gross abuse of process of law and was required to be dismissed with punitive damages.

"Accordingly, present petition stand dismissed with punitive damages of Rs two lakh," the commission said.

In its appeal, the company told the NCDRC that Singh had deposited Rs two lakh with it but at that time no agreement was signed between them.

Later, Singh's registration was cancelled at initial stage and the money was also returned, hence, Singh did not come within the purview of a consumer. However, the district forum had asked the company to hand over the plot to Singh.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/firm-to-pay-rs-2l-punitive-damages-for-merit-less-petition-114081400432_1.html

Comments

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...

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.

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 ...