Skip to main content

Allotment agency can't ask enhanced price for alternate flat

DDA has been directed to give a compensation of Rs two lakh to a man who was asked to pay a revised amount for an alternative flat after it could not hand him possession of a previously alloted property and fought a 24-year legal battle against it.

While asking Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot the new flat to Noida resident R K Bhilwaria at the previous rate, New Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said, "In case allotment agency cancels a particular flat and allots an alternative one, it is not entitled to any enhanced price of flat".

The order came by the commission, presided by Salma Noor, after noting that Bhilwaria had already paid the registration charges for the the flat he was allotted earlier and now DDA was asking revised price for the alternative flat.

A district consumer forum had earlier asked the DDA to pay the compensation money to Bhilwaria, who has been fighting the legal battle for 24 years, besides the allotment of the flat without charging anything from him.

The authority then filed an appeal in the state commission against the order which was rejected.

"It is a settled principle of law that in case allotment agency cancels a particular flat and allots an alternative one, it is not entitled to any enhanced price of the flat. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant (DDA) that it is entitled to the difference of Rs 7,025, is of no avail," the commission's bench, also comprising its judicial member N P Kaushik, said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/allotment-agency-can-t-ask-enhanced-price-for-alternate-flat-114090900891_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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