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

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