Skip to main content

NCDRC asks construction firm to pay over Rs 1 crore to doctor

The apex consumer commission has asked a real estate company to pay over Rs one crore to a doctor for its failure to give him possession of an apartment, saying that it was making profits at the expense of others.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, asked Mumbai-based Orbit Corporation Ltd to pay Rs 1,17,11,340 to a doctor, holding that this was a case of unfair trade practice.

The company had rejected the doctor's claim seeking refund of his money and compensation, citing delay due to several problems which cropped up in the process.

The bench, also comprising its member S M Kantikar, said, "We are unable to countenance all these feckless arguments. One must know the significance of a home. It is well said: Home, the spot of earth, supremely blest; A dearer, sweeter spot, than all the rest...

"It is difficult to fathom, why the consumer should suffer for his (company) deliberate inaction, negligence and passivity. It is clear that Opposite Party (OP) succeeded in its attempt to feather its own nest, i.E., to make profits for itself, often, at the expense of others."

It said, "As the firm is unable to give the premises in dispute, therefore, it is directed to return the sum of Rs 1,16,11,340 to the complainant...With litigation charges in the sum of Rs one lakh."

Dr N Y Kachawalla had told the commission that he had paid Rs 1,16,11,340 to the company in 2009 for an apartment in Mumbai, but despite repeated requests it did not give him the possession while it had assured it will be given by August, 2013.

He claimed that after he demanded the interest for the pending period, the company refused to pay so and also to refund the amount paid by him.

 Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ncdrc-asks-construction-firm-to-pay-over-rs-1-crore-to-doctor_953823.html

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