Skip to main content

Person who has deposited earnest money along with application for allotment can be considered ‘consumer’

In CS Grewal v. M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.04.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 05/2016, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant/complainant C.S. Grewal did not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ u/s 2(1)(d) of the Act and hence, the consumer complaint was not maintainable.  It was held by the State Commission that the complainant had only applied for an allotment of plot and his application had not matured into an ‘allotment’ and hence, he could not be called a ‘consumer’.

The Ld. NCDRC said that the facts and circumstances on record makes it very clear that the allotment of a plot was duly made by the OP Builder in favour of the appellant/complainant and as per their own version, the letter dated 29.01.2009 was sent to him.  The OP Builder have stated categorically that due to non-payment of further amount on the part of the complainant, they cancelled the said allotment and sent the cancellation letter dated 06.01.2011 to him.  They have also admitted in their written statement filed before the District Forum that they had carried out the change in address in their record, following instructions received from the complainant. 

The Commission rejecting the decision of the State Forum by agreeing with the appellant by citing a decision of this Commission in “Harminder Kaur, Mandeep Kaur v. Haryana Urban Development Authority” (supra), in which, it has been held that after the deposit of earnest money alongwith application for allotment, a person does fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more