Skip to main content

No compensation for delay in delivery of flats purchased for commercial purpose

A person who is involved in purchasing and selling of flats for profits, he does not fall within the purview of “consumer” and is not entitled for compensation from the construction firm for delay in handing over possession of the flats, observed NCDRC while rendering relief to a construction firm. The Commission was hearing a revision petition filed by Magrath Property Developer challenging the order of Karnataka State Commission vide which the order of District Consumer Forum passed in favour of the Complainant was upheld. Earlier, Complainant had booked six flats in the project floated by Magrath Property Developer and alleging delay in possession of the said flats, he approached District Consumer Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and Magrath Property Developer was directed to pay Rs 8,86,347 as interest, Rs 1 lakh as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost to the Complainant. In appeal filed by the Construction Firm, State Commission upheld the order of District Consumer Forum. In its defense, the Firm contended that the Complainant had purchased six apartments in the project and had sold five apartments and generated profit, hence he does not fall within the purview of “consumer”. After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant documents, NCDRC observed that, “There is nothing on record that complainant booked six flats to accommodate all his family members and Learned State Commission without any basis assumed that flats were booked for his family members. Had it been so, he would not have sold five flats and generated profit. But, it is admitted fact that complainant booked six flats, so, he does not fall within the purview of “consumer.” While holding that once complainant does not fall within the purview of “consumer”, District Forum committed error in allowing the complaint filed by him, NCDRC set aside the orders of State Commission and District Forum, [Magrath Property Developer v. A.S.Veeranna, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 16, decided on June 26, 2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/07/10/no-compensation-for-delay-in-delivery-of-flats-purchased-for-commercial-purpose.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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

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