Skip to main content

Home buyers can ‘jointly take on’ real estate giants

Clearing the way for homebuyers planning to file complaints against builders in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) through an association route, the Supreme Court on Tuesday has made it clear this is well within their rights and the focus should be on addressing their grievances.
The decision also marks significance since it would remove multiplicity of cases for state and national consumer forums and allow homebuyers to directly approach the national commission by forming a registered association, saving their time and money.
Dismissing multiple appeals filed by Amrapali Sapphire Developer challenging the right of a registered consumer association to file a complaint on behalf of multiple buyers of the same project, the apex court observed that it is the grievances of homebuyers that needs to be looked into, informed Sahil Sethi, senior associate at law firm Saikrishna & Associates, who represented the Amrapali Sapphire Flat Buyers Welfare Association.
The apex court also remarked that Amrapali has taken money from buyers and neither given them possession nor is refunding their money, informed Sethi.
"The apex court did not entertain our appeals and dismissed the same. We will be continuing the proceedings in NCDRC," said Rakesh Kumar, advocate representing Amrapali Sapphire Developer.
In May last year, around 100 buyers of Amrapali Sapphire project in Noida filed a complaint before NCDRC, to which Amrapali in its response said that in order to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 an association should receive recognition from the Bureau of India Standards.
Amrapali further challenged the complaint on the ground that as the apartments in the project were priced lesser than Rs 1 crore, which is the pecuniary jurisdiction of the national commission, NCDRC should not entertain complaints from buyers and the complaint should be filed before the state commission in Lucknow.
In August 2016, NCDRC ruled in favour of the buyers on both these counts. Amrapali then approached the Supreme Court, getting a stay on the NCDRC order. The apex court also issued notice to the buyers' association to file a response.

The association in its response said the appeal is merely a tactic adopted by Amrapali to avoid/delay the proceedings before NCDRC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
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