Skip to main content

Only registered home buyers' body can file complaint against builders: NCDRC

The NCDRC heard MOULIVAKKAM TRUST HEIGHTS FLATS AFFECTED BUYERS ASSOCIATION vs M/s PRIME SRISTI HOUSING PVT. LTD. & 29 ORS along with cases filed by a host of other litigants and held that only registered residents' welfare associations (RWAs), consumer organisations, cooperative societies or association of flat or plot buyers can file complaints against builders in the commission.

Clearing the ambigbuity regarding the term ‘voluntary consumer association’ in Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, presiding member Justice VK Jain in his order on Friday said, "Recognised consumer association means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force."

The commission has also made it clear that a Trust cannot file a case for one or more consumers or on behalf of a group.

It said the sole or one of the main objectives of the body should be to pursue, propagate, advance, safeguard or promote the interests of the consumers in general.

"It should be a body formed by a group of persons, coming together of their own will and without being motivated by any financial consideration," the order said.

NCDRC also clarified that if a body is formed with the objective of making financial gains, and not to serve the cause of the consumer or the society in general, it will not qualify as a voluntary consumer association.

"Authenticity of an association is important. I think with clarity on the same, the process will be streamlined and the cases will get expedited. We will spread awareness and appeal to the buyers to form associations and get it registered before moving to the court," said Abhishek Kumar, president of Noida Extension Flat Owners Welfare Association (NEFOWA).

NCDRC and the Supreme Court have already made it clear that a group of consumers having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same or identical relief against the same person can come together without forming any association to file a case in NCDRC with a claim of Rs 1 crore or more.

In case the claim is less than Rs 1 crore, then consumers need to file cases in the district forum or state commission.

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