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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

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