Simplification of the Procedure


I have always advocated that the Consumer Protection Act is the best option in appropriate cases.

It is faster than other remedies like civil courts.
The fees are nominal.
The consumer himself can file and argue his case.

I attended a talk by Ms. Rajyalakshmi Rao, ex member of the National Consumer Commission on the 28 March 2015.
There are problems which should be sorted out.

Matters can and should be simplified. I am giving a few simple suggestions.

1  The format of the Complaint varies from State to State and Forum to Forum in the same State. This practically forces a complainant to engage a lawyer.

The National Commission can formulate rules specifying the basic format of all the required documents.
So long as these are complied with, the individual Forums and Commissions need not be hyper technical.

2 Far too many adjournments are given.

I do realize that adjournments do have to be given in genuine cases, like the parties’ or advocate’s illnes,  but too many adjournments are given, even when there are no grounds indicated or mentioned. There is a lot of waste of time of all concerned, which could be minimized.

3. There are far  too many similar cases …for instance cases against builders, insurance companies. There are any number of decisions on these issues.

Much of these litigation can be curtailed by imposing heavy costs or damages, where rulings on similar issues are not followed.
For example, builders seem to ignore the law with impunity.. And by the time the issue, say of car parking, forming of housing society, conveyance, handing over of common areas, is decided against  them, they would have enjoyed the benefit for years and decades. Heavy damages should be imposed so that such practice is curtailed. The damages may be given to the Consumer Protection Fund.

4. There are some Forums which have a huge pendency …may be because of vacancies, or because the particular jurisdiction has more litigants.

In such cases, the State Commission can easily transfer some of the pending cases to other Forums or change the territorial jurisdiction so that the workload is better and more evenly  distributed.

Maruti dealer ordered to give a new car to the purchaser in lieu of defective car.


Maruti dealer ordered to give a new car to the purchaser in lieu of defective car.

 

Grievance

 

The complainant had booked Maruti Swift Dzire ZXI car with an authorized dealer of Maruti cars. The complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- by cheque on 29/01/2009 at the time of said booking. On 23/02/2009, when complainant visited the showroom of the dealer for selection of car accessories and for making further payment, he was shown another car model of Maruti i.e. SX4 ZXI of which complainant took a test drive and decided to purchase said car i.e. SX4 ZXI instead of Swift Dzire. Complainant had paid entire consideration of Rs.7,80,000/- for the same to the dealer and he was assured that the car was new and manufactured in the current year.

 

But on 07/03/2009, when the complainant went to the showroom of the dealer for taking delivery he found that colour of car was faded, plastic/rubber covering was looking old, car was having 4-5 scratches and it was looking old. Therefore, complainant complained to the Sales Executive about condition of the car, but no satisfactory answers to the queries were given by the Sales Executive.

 

Complaint before District Consumer Forum

 

The complainant was insisting for delivering him a new car manufactured in the year 2009 or for refund of consideration but the dealer or Maruti did not give any response and as such complainant filed a complaint against the dealer and manufacturer before the Learned District Forum claiming price of the car i.e. Rs.7,80,000/- along with interest and compensation.
The District Forum partly allowing the complaint filed by the complainant directing the dealer to remove all the superficial defects in the vehicle as mentioned by the complainant and also directed the dealer to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation. The complaint against Maruti, the manufacturer was dismissed.

 

Appeal before the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission

 

The Complainant preferred appeal before the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission.

The Commission held as follows:

“ As regards, the order of removing superficial defects, we find that when the complainant has paid entire consideration of said vehicle for brand new Maruti car, it was reasonably expected by him from the dealer i.e. that he should provide to the complainant with a brand new car without any defect-superficial or otherwise. If the dealer would have provided the complainant the said car in brand new condition without any defects mentioned above, there was no reason for the complainant for not accepting the said car after paying entire cost of the vehicle.

” We do not find any reason for him not to take delivery of the car if it would have been in proper condition of a new brand car. This itself is enough and sufficient to establish that said car was not appearing like a new brand car and there were defects appearing on the face of it as pointed out by the complainant at the time of the said delivery.

 

“ In this situation, we find that when the consumer has paid the entire purchase cost to the dealer, he rightly expected to get a brand new car from the dealer which should appear also to be as such. However, over a period of time as the said vehicle cannot be expected to be in the condition of brand new car, we find that only removing superficial defects of the car as ordered by the Learned District Forum will not suffice and will not give justice to the complainant.

 

( The State Commission differentiated this case from two decisions of the National Consumer commission. Decision in First Appeal Nos.303 & 304 of 1993 decided on 06/11/1995 reported in I (1996) CPJ 182 NC and decision in First Appeal Nos.132 & 260 of 1993 decided on 17/05/1995 reported in II (1995) CPJ 187 (NC)).

 

 “ In the light of above discussion, we are of the opinion that as the dealer has failed to deliver the vehicle in a brand new condition without any defect superficial or otherwise in spite of receiving entire amount of purchase price, it will be just and proper to direct the dealer to refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest. The order of the Learned District Forum needs to be modified accordingly. Hence, we pass the following order :-

  1. Appeal is partly allowed.
  2. The Dealer is directed to provide the appellant-original complainant with alternate car in a brand new condition or in the alternative to refund the amount paid by the complainant of Rs.7,80,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of alleged delivery till the date of realisation.
  3. Compenstation ordered by the Learned District Forum regarding the amount of compensation for physical and mental agony and costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is maintained.

Note:  In this case, the Complainant had not taken delivery of the car from the showroom.

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

BEFORE: Justice A.P. Bhangale PRESIDENT A. K. Zade MEMBER

Appeal No. A/14/714   decided on 9 th October 2017

Mr.Umesh Desai  Versus 1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and  2. Jay Vijay Motors Pvt. Ltd.

 

Axis Bank directed to refund the money lost due Bank Fraud

 

Bank Frauds are on the rise. The cheated are left high and dry. The Banks put the blame on their customers.

I had occasion to deal with one bank fraud of Rs. 14 lakhs. I lost before the District Forum. But the State Commission passed the order in favour of the cheated customer.
The following are extracted from the judgement.

“ The appeal is directed against order dated 24/07/2014 passed by the District Forum, Central Mumbai dismissing the Complaint. The complainant was surprised to find that amount of Rs.14,00,900/- was withdrawn from his Savings Bank Account by 22 internet transfers between the dates 08/01/2013 and 09/01/2013 to 12 different accounts of which 10 accounts were with the Axis Bank.

“ We have heard Learned Counsel Mr .Binoy Gupta for appellant …. With the help of both parties, we have gone through the material on record. The Learned Counsel for the appellant first submitted that the opponent- bank ought to have been held guilty of gross deficiency in service to the complainant since all that was done could not have been done without the negligence of the officials concerned of the opponent No.1-Bank.

“ The undisputed facts are that the complainant had Salary Savings Account with the Axis A/14/755 Page 5 of 10 Bank Ltd. at Khar (West) Branch. ……… There is increase in the grievances of the customers in relation to unauthorized banking transactions in respect of electronic online remote payment and cashless transactions e.g. internet banking, mobile banking, card not present (CNP) transactions, pre-paid payment instruments resulting in debits from their Bank accounts and customers need to be protected in unauthorized electronic banking transactions. Banks need to assure safety to the customers making them feel safe and secure in respect of the electronic banking transactions. Banks are duty bound to take appropriate steps to assess the risk and provide for robust mechanism to prevent and detect fraud and to provide for liability arising out of misappropriation or fraud.

“ In view of the reasons stated, we pass the following order :- We set aside and quash the impugned Judgment and order dated 24/07/2014 passed in Consumer Complaint case No.140 of 2013 by the District Forum, Central Mumbai and we allow the appeal with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the appellant by the respondent No.1. We direct the opponent/respondent No.1-Bank to deposit back the sum of Rs.14,00,900/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Nine Hundred only) unauthorizedly transferred to the accounts of other Banks on 08/01/2013 and 09/01/2013 from the accounts of the complainant. If the opponent/respondent No.1-Bank fails to deposit back the amount as directed within a month from the date of this order, the sum shall be payable together with interest at the rate of Rs.9% interest till realisation. The compensation for mental harassment to the appellant/complainant is arrived at Rs.One Lakh and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- which shall be payable by opponent/respondent .”

HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,

[ Justice A.P. Bhangale ] PRESIDENT [ D.R. Shirasao] JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pronounced in Appeal No. A/14/755  on 7th August 2017.

Consumer Protection Act – Reply to complaint should be filed within 45 days, rules SC


Consumer Protection Act – Reply to complaint should be filed within 45 days, rules SC

The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) stipulates that the party against whom a complaint is lodged must file its reply within a particular time frame – 30 days which can be extended by up to 15 days.
But this stipulation has often been ignored.
The Consumer Forums have been granting extension of time repeatedly “in the interest of justice”.

(Earlier there were some conflicting judgments on the interpretation of this provision as to whether this period was mandatory, or merely procedural and directory.)

In Civil Appeal Nos. 10941 10942 of 2013 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. the Supreme Court has resolved the conflicting interpretations.

In this decision dated December 4, 2015, a specially constituted three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has now authoritatively laid down the law that the time stipulated under the CPA must be strictly adhered to.

It observed that consumer fora are bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the CPA. The law provides that the version in reply to the complaint has to be filed within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days, as may be granted. This provision is for having a speedy trial. If this period is not adhered to, it will defeat the legislative mandate to dispose of consumer cases within three months, or five months, where laboratory testing of goods is required.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the legislative mandate to file the version within a maximum period of 45 days must be strictly adhered to.
In other words, the Consumer Forums cannot grant any time beyond 45 days.

Conclusion

This landmark ruling will ensure that opposite parties do not delay filing their version to deliberately delay the proceedings in order to harass the consumer.

Dr. Sitesh Roy – false and misleading advertisements

 

Dr. Sitesh Roy has the following words about himself on his blog

http://drsiteshroy.com/

VOTED AMONG BEST DOCTORS IN AMERICA 6 YEARS IN A ROW

For appointments

9833553343/24145656

I had found some of the degrees listed by him were not recognized in India. Some of the abbreviations in fact did not even exist.
And who voted him among best doctors in America 6 years in a row?
I took up the matter with the ASCI.

I am reproducing their findings:

Dear Dr. Binoy Gupta,  

Re: CCC Recommendation– 1706-C.499  –Your complaint against the advertisement of “Dr. Roy Health Solutions Clinic – Dr. Sitesh Roy”
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
The complaint was considered by the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) at their meeting.

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that he has been selected officially into the peer-reviewed Best Doctors in America listing for the years mentioned on the website. The claim “Voted Among Best Doctors in America 6 years in a Row”, is an honour, that he received while practicing at UMMC, Jackson, MS. The first time he was listed was in 2005-2006 and then again in 2007-2008, then again in 2009-2010 and finally in 2011-2012. He received this prestigious, peer-review based Listing Among the Best Doctors in America for 8 years in a row, however during the website designing it was listed only as 6 years in a row. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of registration certificates of Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai and Medical Council of India, copies of certificates of `Best Doctor’ certifying that Dr. Sitesh R Roy has been selected as one of the best doctors in America for 2005-2006 and 2007-2008.

The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that Dr. Sitesh R Roy has provided proof of his registration with Medical Council of India as well as Maharashtra Medical Council for additional medical qualification registration with the Maharashtra Medical Council of MD in Paediatrics University of Illinois Hospitals at Chicago in 2000, and the documents have a reference to his Registration number 79537. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the qualification of the doctor has been substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

Regarding the “Best Doctors” award, the CCC noted that the award being mentioned was for one financial year (such as 2005-06) and not for two years as interpreted by the advertiser. Advertiser provided proof of his listing among “best doctors in America” for only two years i.e. 2005-06 and 2007-08. The claim, “Voted Among Best Doctors In America 6 Years In A Row”, was thus not substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration. The CCC also expressed its reservations regarding the “Best Doctors” award process and lack of any disclaimers in the advertisement to provide a reference to consumers regarding the nature of this poll. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

Regarding the complainant’s allegations regarding the advertiser not possessing the advertised qualifications, the CCC recommended that the complainant may approach the State Medical Council or police for the grievance since this matter does not fall under ASCI’s purview.

We have advised the advertiser to withdraw or modify the said advertisement by October 12, 2017. You may note that while ASCI believes in persuation to ensure self regulation in advertising content, in case of continued non-compliance, alternate remedies are available to consumers to approach an appropriate forum such as State Consumer Forum. 

Thank you for having referred this complaint to us.

Assuring you of our services in the pursuit of Self-Regulation in Advertising.

Yours faithfully,

Riddhi Dharod
Executive – Complaints Handling
The Advertising Standards Council of India

 

Email & Informal agreement are valid – Supreme Court of India

 

Email & Informal agreement are valid – Supreme Court of India

 

Supreme Court on Trimex case – Formality not required under Contract Act    

The Indian Contract Act, 1872: ss.4, 7 – Concluded contract containing arbitration clause – Valid

The  Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of “Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai vs. Vedanta Aluminium Limited, India” in Re (2010) 3 SCC 1”  held that in the absence of signed agreement between the parties, it would be possible to infer from   various documents duly approved and signed by the parties in the form of exchange of emails, letter, telex, telegram and other means of communication.

 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the unconditional acceptance through emails and held the same to be a valid contract which satisfies the requirements of Section 4 and 7 of the Contract Act 1872 and further it satisfies Section 2(1)(b), 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.  In the absence of a signed agreement inference can be from documents approved and signed by the parties in the form of exchange emails, letters, telegrams which come within Section 10 and 2(e) of the Contract Act 1972.

Robbery of Bank Locker ……whether bank is liable for loss to the customer

 

Robbery of Bank Locker ……the bank is liable for loss to the customer under the Consumer Protection Act

  

Gist

June 13, 2017

  1. 26 lockers at a Punjab National Bank (PNB) branch in Ghaziabad near Delhi emptied out.
  2. CCTVs not working, no guard at bank.
  3. Robbery during week end by gang drilling hole into bank wall.

Facts

A group of thieves demolished a portion of the wall of the Punjab National Bank (PNB) bank’s branch in Ghaziabad  and emptied about 30 lockers.  The value would be in crores of rupees.

The police officers probing the bank robbery found that the CCTV cameras were not working, and there was no guard at the bank.

The police found that the gang had entered the bank by boring through a concrete wall. A dense cover of bushes concealed them as they demolished the wall.

According to the police, the burglary which was discovered on June 12, 2017

took place either on Saturday or Sunday when the bank was shut.


“I visited the crime spot and found that the bank lacks security measures. If any attempt was made to intrude into the bank, a siren should have gone off. But the siren did not work,” said a police officer.

 

Whether the Banks are liable for the loss


Similar locker robberies have taken place from time to time. The Banks deny any liability.

 The RBI and the public sector banks deny any liability

 A lawyer filed applications under the Right To Information Act (RTI) to the Reserve Bank of India  and 19 Public Sector Banks.

 

The Reserve Bank of India  and the 19 Public Sector Banks absolved themselves of any responsibility of items from personal lockers. They replied that Banks are not responsible for the loss or robbery of any valuables from a personal locker because the relationship between customers who use bank lockers and the banks themselves is that of a lessee (landlord) and lessor (tenant). 

 

Decisions under the Consumer Protection Act

 

The following are the arguments usually advanced by banks in such cases:


(i) That since the controversy involved in this case pertains to a criminal case which is also pending  before the competent criminal court, therefore, this Commission had no jurisdiction to decide the matter in question and thus the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

 

(ii) That as per the agreement executed between the complainant and opposite party  and as per terms and conditions thereof the complainant is estopped from questioning the bank for stolen of the ornaments in the incident of theft which had taken place in the bank.

 

(iii) That under the  conditions of the Safe Deposit Memorandum of hiring of lease,  it is clearly mentioned that the bank would not be responsible for any damages or loss to the contents kept in the safe deposits vault as a result of any act of war or civil disorder or theft or burglary and the contents would be kept by the hirer at his sole risk and responsibility. In light of above, for the loss of articles  in any incident of theft/ burglary, the bank cannot be held liable.

Various Consumer Commissions and Forums have found the bank liable in appropriate cases.  I am giving the link to one decision.

 

Decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

Vivek Agarwal  & Ors.  Vs  Indian Overseas Bank

19 May, 2010

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)

 

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Maha RERA)

RERA has effectively started functioning in Maharashtra.

Maharashtra Government had established Maha RERA on March 8, 2017 for regulation and promotion of real estate sector in the state, with its headquarters in Mumbai.

The RERA act, lays rules and regulation for the real estate sector. It is aimed to bring in much needed transparency, efficiency, and professionalism that will further strengthen home buyers’ confidence.
 

Gautam Chatterjee appointed first Chairman of MahaRERA 

RERA-Real Estate Regulatory Authority came into effect from May 1, 2017.

Gautam Chaterjee, an IAS Officer, has been appointed the first Chairman of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Maha RERA).


First Case to be decided under RERA

In its  first case,  taken up suo moto, the RERA authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1.2 lakhs on Sai real estate consultant firm

In its first decision in a case taken up suo moto,  the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) norms that have given a big boost to home buyers, a Chembur-based real estate consultant firm has been asked to pay Rs 1.2 lakh as fine for a misleading advertisement of an ongoing construction project.

Penalised under Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) act, Sai Estate Consultant became the first firm to be fined under the act. The Authority’s order, issued on Monday,  stated that the consultant was guilty of advertising a project which wasn’t registered with it at the time of advertising.

Under the new rules, advertising for sale of flats in projects that are not registered with the Authority is considered as a violation under the rules of the regulatory body. The firm, which advertised a project of Haware builders in Thane, has also been asked to withdraw the advertisement and restrain from promoting it in absence of the Authority’s registration.

In addition to the fine, the firm has also been asked to tender an apology. The action comes as result of a complaint, filed in this regard from consumer activist outfit, the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. “We welcome this bold order, and hope builders and real estate agents learn lessons from it,” the activist outfit was quoted as saying by Indian Express.

The entire decision is available at the following site:

https://maharera.mahaonline.gov.in/Site/Upload/pdf/Legal-Advisor-MahaRERA-Vs-Sai-Estate-Consultant-Chembur-Pvt-Ltd-Suo-Motu-Case-No-1-of-2017-dated-5-06-2017.pdf


Important Links

The MAHARERA site states that even if you have filed a complaint in the Consumer Forum, you can with draw the same, and file the Complaint or application in RERA.

https://maharerait.mahaonline.gov.in/PDF/FAQMergedPDF.pdf

  1. If the buyer wants to file a complaint in Consumer Court, is there any bar under the Act?

Ans: No. As per section 79 of the Act, civil courts are barred from entertaining disputes (suits or proceedings) in respect of matters which Real Estate Regulatory Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine. However, the consumer forums (National, State or District) have not been barred from the ambit of the Act. Section 71 proviso permits the complainant to withdraw his complaint as regards matters under section 12, 14, 18 and section 19, from the consumer forum and file it with the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act.

Web Site of MahaRERA

Link to the Web site of RERA where you can download the Act, Rules and  other documents.

https://maharera.mahaonline.gov.in/Home/Index

 

 

Public Garden converted into Club House – Chief Justice visits site

 

In a rare action, the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court goes incognito and catches a Builder’s lie.

By Alka Dhupkar, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: May 6, 2017, 08.05 AM IST

Final order likely next month; PIL says garden turned into clubhouse
Justice Chellur was stopped from entering a public park at Cuffe Parade, confirming allegations that the builder had turned it into a private space

A huge land parcel in south Mumbai will be thrown open to public after Manjula Chellur, chief justice of the Bombay High Court, inspected it incognito and found that allegations of a developer taking it over illegally were true.


Justice Chellur posed as a regular Mumbaikar out on a stroll last week when she was prevented by the builder’s security guards from entering the premises, abutting the 32-storey DSK Durgamata luxurious apartments at Cuffe Parade. It comes as no surprise that Justice Chellur, in her observation yesterday, said the premises should be restored as a public open space, and the security of the premises be taken over by the BMC. The matter has been posted for a final hearing next month. The case pertains to the 16,000 sq ft plot on Prakash Pethe Marg where DSK Developers were allowed to construct a gymnasium on 33% of the plot area. The remaining 67% – almost 11,000 sq ft – was to be developed for public usage.

A petition filed in HC by activist Sanjay Kokate said the builder usurped a plot to build a clubhouse, leaving little space for citizens. The petition added that the builder violated several conditions of the agreement with the BMC.

Nearly eight months after the petition was filed, the high court in March this year directed that a technical expert will inspect the plot. While an inspection committee submitted its report yesterday damning the builder, Justice Chellur, who experienced first-hand what hundreds of citizens attempting to access the garden go through, said the plot must be restored as public space immediately.

While representatives of DSK Developers refused to comment on Friday’s verdict, the inspection committee comprising officials of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority and the Bombay HC said it found nothing for the public at the premises. In a seven-page report, the committee said, “We did not find any equipment for children to play… no swings, no slides, nor benches there. There was a garden which could, at best, be described as a `landscape garden’, not a recreation garden.”

The report also said there were no signs that said the plot was for public usage. “Entry to the said area is restricted by deploying security guards at the gate. The access way is used by the occupants of the DSK tower for ingress. We were stopped at the entrance by the security guards, and allowed to enter only after disclosing our identities,” the report said.

Petitioner Kokate’s lawyer Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf said the case was a classic example of a public property being converted for personal use. “An independent surveyor appointed by the HC last year prepared a fake report to favour DSK. The chief justice, however, appointed court officers to inspect the premises. Also, in the most proactive manner, the chief justice herself visited the premises without informing anyone and said she was also prevented from entering the premises. The court has now posted the matter to June for passing final orders,” Iqbal said.

 

(Reproduced from Mumbai Mirror.)

 

LG ordered to replace Defective Air Conditioner


In one of my earliest consumer dispute cases filed for defective Air Conditioner in 2012,

the Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District Admin Bldg.,

3rd floor, Nr. Chetana College, Bandra-East, Mumbai-51 has passed its order on 1.2.17

Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/12/93 1.

ANILA GUPTA , BINOY GUPTA
1101, SHIROMANI, RAJ KAMAL LANE, PAREL, MUMBAI-12. ………..Complainant(s)

Versus

  1. SNEHANJALI 1, BONANZA ARCADE, S.V ROAD, AMBOLI, OPP. RAILWAY STATION CROSSING, ANDHERI-WEST, MUMBAI-58.
  2. L G ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 51, SURAJPUR KASNA ROAD, GREATER NOIDA, U.P.-201306. …………Opp.Party(s)

In the result we pass the following order.

ORDER

 

  1. RBT Consumer Complaint No. 93/2012 is partly allowed.
  2. The Opposite Party No.2 LG Electronics India Private Limited is directed to replace AC Model No.LSA5ZGSN with new AC of same quality and description within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
  3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental angry to complaint No. 1.
  4. No order as to cost.

 Copy of this order be sent to the both parties. [HON’BLE MR. S.D.MADAKE] PRESIDENT [HON’BLE MR. S.V.KALAL] MEMBER

 

Link to the full decision:

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=21%2F608%2FRBT%2FCC%2F12%2F93&dtofhearing=2017-02-01

Appeal

The order is good. But the District Forum has directed LG is replace the old AC with another new one of the same model. This model has been discontinued several years ago.
Further, the Forum has not awarded any interest and costs which is normally done. 
I have therefore preferred appeal in the State Commission.

Happy Ending

LG has agreed to replace the old AC with one of the latest versions and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000.  I will withdraw the appeal.

Builder liable to hand over areas shown open in the original plans (even if the constructions are made with the approval of the Municipal Corporation)

 

Duty of  Builder :

To pay Interest and compensation for delayed possession;  builder liable to hand  over areas shown open in the original plans (even if the constructions are made with the approval of the Municipal Corporation) and that  no fees can be collected for car parking spaces.

 

In CONSUMER CASE NO. 1479 OF 2015

DEVELOPERS TOWNSHIP PROPERTY OWNERS WELFARE SOCIETY
505, Hemkunt Chambers, 89 Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110 019.                                                         ………..Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Jaypee Greens, Sector -128, Noida – 201 304
Uttar Pradesh. …………………………………………………………….Opp.Party(s)

 

By its order dated 2 May 2016, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

Decided the following issues.

 

Interest and compensation for delayed possession;  builder liable to hand  handing over areas shown open in the original plans (even if the constructions are made with the approval of the Municipal Corporation) and that  no fees can be collected for car parking spaces.

 

“ 31. This Commission in the case of M/s G.G. Associates & Ors. Vs. Commodore Ravindra Kumar Narad & Anr. Revision Petition No. 1647 of 2014, decided on 16.10.2014, placed reliance on a Ruling reported in Kalpita Enclave Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Kiran Builder of the Hon’ble Bombay High Cour t, it was observed that “if the original plans and specifications on the basis of which the persons were persuaded to purchase the flats discloses that certain areas will be kept open it would be clear contravention of the agreement as well as the law if the promoter proceeds to construct additional structure on those places even with the sanction of the Municipal Corporation”.

 

“ FINAL ORDER :

i) It was stated by the counsel for the OP at Bar that they would send offers of possession of allotment within three months from 22.04.2016. There is already huge delay. We accept the offer made on behalf of the OP and direct the OP to handover the possession of the premises in dispute within three months from 22.04.2016 to 21.07.2016, otherwise, it will pay penalty in the sum of Rs.5,000/- per flat / per allottee/allottees, per day, till the needful is done; -15

ii) For the delayed period, the OP is directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a., on the amount(s) deposited by the respective complainants w.e.f. 39 months’ from the date of respective provisional allotment letters, till the actual physical possession as per prayer clause (a), is handed over by the OP. All the necessary documents, common areas and facilities be also provided.

iii) The OP is further directed to provide adequate car parking spaces in the project for the complainants therein and refund the excess amount, if any, collected from the members of the Complainant Society towards car parking slots, with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date(s) of charging, till its realization.

iv) As per law laid down in K.A. Nagamani (supra), we further impose costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to each of the flat allottee / allottees, total being Rs.5,00,000/-, for all the flat owners. The said amount be paid within 90 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization.

Link to the full decision:

file:///C:/Users/Eleena/Downloads/National%20Commission%20judgement2016-05-02%20(1).pdf