Skip to main content

Consumer cannot suffer on account of disputes between company directors

The Chandigarh State Commission, while allowing a complaint against Premium Acres Infratech Private limited, ruled that a consumer cannot be made to suffer on account of inter-se disputes between company directors.

The complainants, Sundeep Singh and his wife, Jagpuneet Kaur of Fatehgarh Sahib, bought a villa at "The Courtyard Villas," a housing project of TDI City in Sector 110, Mohali, from then directors, Amit Jain and Sanjay Jain. They paid the directors but later, both were removed. The new director who took over refused to give them procession. In his reply, he filed that possession could not be given because the complainants did not make timely payments.

Current director of the company, PS Sehgal contended that Sanjay Jain, ex-director issued forged receipts and other documents to the customers, on account of which several criminal and civil cases were pending and therefore the court should not rely on the said documents in favour of the consumers.

However, consumer possession of the Villa was to be given in 24 months, failing which the company would be liable to pay a penalty of Rs 15,000 per month for the period of delay. After hearing all the parties, the Commission held that possession of the unit in question was not delivered to complainants by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed. The complainants are thus entitled to compensation/penalty of Rs 15,000 per month, for the period of delay, per month, from March 4, 2013 (promised date).

The Commission directed the company and its directors to hand over legal physical possession of Villa No 34, complete in all respects, to the complainants, within three months on payment of Rs 9,17,110. The company is also to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000 to complainants on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment and Rs 20,000 as legal costs.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Realty-firm-to-pay-up-for-deficient-service/articleshow/47089574.cms

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