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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more