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

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