Skip to main content

Real estate firm directed to pay Rs 4.77 cr for 'huge delay'

A real estate firm has been directed by the apex consumer commission to pay Rs 4.77 crore to seven consumers for "huge delay" in handing over apartments to them noting that the builder had attempted to make profit at the cost of others.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Justice J M Malik noted that the apartments booked nine years ago in Greater Noida were yet to be delivered by Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt Ltd and asked it to pay Rs 4,77,58,658 with 18 per cent interest to the seven consumers.

"There is a magic in that little word 'home'. It is a mystic circle and surrounds comforts and virtues, never known beyond its hollowed limits. However, customers are exasperated by senseless delay made by the Builder of a colony," the commission said.

"It must be borne in mind that there is a huge delay in handing over possession of the premises in dispute, i.E., about 9 years. The Opposite Party (builder) has made an attempt to feather its own nest, i.E., to make profits for itself, at the cost of others' expenses. The Opposite Party has utilised the amount for its own purposes," it said.

The commission also directed the firm to pay Rs one lakh each to the complainants for harassment and mental agony.

According to the complainants, in 2006-07, the real-estate firm had advertised for availability of flats in their projects 'Unitech Verve' in Sector Pi-II at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh which was scheduled to be delivered within 36 months of signing of allotment letter.

The seven complainants said that they had applied for flats, either individually or jointly, and had paid the money demanded by the builder.

However, after the project got delayed, they filed complaint before the commission in October 2012.

The firm submitted before the commission that it was unable to hand over the possession of apartments to them.

It, however, submitted that it was ready to pay 10 per cent interest to the consumers as per the agreement entered into between the parties.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/real-estate-firm-directed-to-pay-rs-4-77-cr-for-huge-delay-115050800990_1.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