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

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...

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.

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 ...