Skip to main content

It is the duty of the builder to mention the date of delivery of possession in the agreement

In Adrian Pereira v. Anita Ronald Lewis, the appeal was filed by the Appellant - Opposite Party under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein the Complaint was partly allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to handover possession of the subject flat to the Respondent - Complainant after receiving the balance consideration amount from the Respondent - Complainant.

On 07.12.2001, a registered agreement was executed between the parties for sale consideration of Rs. 16.50 lakh. Though not written in the agreement, it was understood that possession was to be delivered to the Complainant by December 2002. But, no satisfactory progress was made up to 15.02.2003. The Opposite Party assured possession of the flat within three months i.e. on or before 31.05.2003. Despite the assurance, no progress was made and therefore the Complainant wrote a letter on 26.05.2003 to the Opposite Party for opting out of the project and for refund of the entire amount paid. The letter was ignored, the refund was not made. On 17.10.2006, i.e. about 3 years and 5 months of the said letter seeking the refund of the amount paid, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Party alleging that she had cancelled the agreement and paid only Rs. 11 lakh, which she could collect with interest @ 9% p.a. The Complainant refused, and called upon the Opposite Party to hand over possession of the said flat by accepting the balance consideration. The Complainant filed a Complaint with the State Commission  which was partly allowed. The Opposite Party filed an Appeal before the NCDRC.

The contention of the Opposite Party was that the subject agreement was cancelled by the Complainant vide letter dated 26.05.2003 and that that the agreement has no mention of date of delivery of possession of the said flat to the Complainant.

NCDRC on perusal of the said letter observed that it is evident that for more than two years, there was no construction work / development at the site of the project. The Complainant was also paying interest on the amount paid to the Opposite Party builder firm, therefore, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the entire amount paid. However, the Opposite Party slept over the matter. In the absence of the entire amount being refunded, with reasonable interest, within reasonable time, it cannot be contended that the agreement stood cancelled.

Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima and holding deficiency of service on the part of the builder, the NCDRC held that it was the duty of the Opposite Party itself to mention the date of delivery of possession in the agreement and failure to do so necessarily requires to be read against the Opposite Party. In all contingencies, the Complainant could not have been made to wait indefinitely for possession. 

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