In Amit Puri & 3 Ors. vs M/S. Imperia Structure Ltd., the Developer had failed to deliver a flat on time and had offered an alternate accommodation which the buyer had refused to accept and filed complain before the consumer forum. The Developer had objected under two ground. They had alleged in their Affidavit of evidence that that the Complainant is not a 'consumer' as the subject flat was purchased for commercial purpose. The Commission rejecting the argument referred to Sai Everest Developers & Anr. Vs. Harbans Singh, which laid down the principle of law that when the plea that the said flat has been purchased for commercial purpose is raised by the Developer, the onus of proof shifts to the Developer to establish whether the Complainant has purchased the subject flat for trading/dealing in real estate which they failed to do.
Secondly the developer's other contention that the buyer had refused to accept the offer of an alternate arrangement, the Commission rejected the same referring to the order of the commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri which has laid down the ratio that if the construction is incomplete and the money deposited by the Complainants is lying with the Developer it is the discretion of the Complainants whether to await for the project to be completed or seek refund.
Comments
Post a Comment