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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more