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.

 

Link to the Full Decision:

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/43159.pdf

 

22.11.17   Appeal has been filed against the above decision which is pending:

http://sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/2859262.pdf

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

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

Execution Applications under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act


Execution Applications under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act

What to do if the Opposite Party does not obey the order of the various Consumer Forums / Commissions which have attained finality…..
You have to file Execution Applications under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

In Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Amir Ali Tharani  vs  Mr Rajesh Sukhtnkar decided on 27 September, 2010, the Commission has detailed the difference between these two provisions and the procedure to be followed.

I am giving the gist below…….I am also giving the link to the full decision at the end of this article.


            (j)      While dealing with proceeding under Sections 25 & 27, procedure as provided under Sections 13 & 14 will not be applicable;

           (k)     Proceeding under Section 27 is a criminal proceeding and the said proceeding is required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 27 only.  The procedure is a summery criminal procedure to be followed in case of offence and therefore, Chapter XX & XXI which dealt with the procedure of the summery trial of the criminal case will be and shall be applicable in a proceeding under Section 27;

          (l)      It is clarified that the orders passed by the Consumer Fora are no more deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court so as to attract provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure.  After the amendment of Section 25, procedure as provided in old Section 25 is not applicable and therefore, the Consumer Fora cannot invoke powers under Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the order; after new Section 25 has been brought on Statute Book dated 15/03/2003 and therefore, neither the Consumer Fora nor the Civil Court can now execute the orders of the Consumer Fora as if they are decrees of the Civil Court as was permissible under the old Section 25;

          (m)    Under Section 27 District Consumer Forum in a composite way is constituted as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and conferred with the powers of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and this status and the powers have been given by Section 27(2) by applying non-obstante clause and it is clarified that said non-obstante clause is only applicable in sub-Section (2) of Section 27 by which the Consumer Fora have been declared as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class with conferment of powers as such Judicial Magistrate of First Class.  Had the said non-obstante clause been not there, it would have been necessary for the Consumer Fora to get a status of Judicial Magistrate of First Class and conferment of the powers under Section 11 of Code of Criminal Procedure.  However, in order to avoid such difficulties, the Legislature has directly conferred the powers & status of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class directly by the legislation and for said limited purpose, non-obstante clause has been introduced in Section (2) of Section 27.

            It is to be clarified that offence under Section 27(1) of the Act has been provided under the Special Act, namely, Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  So far as trial is concerned, sub-Section (3) has specifically provided for summary procedure of trial and we held that the procedure as provided under Chapter XX & XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed.  We also clarify that in view of provisions of Section 45 & 6 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it follows that except and for the purpose, the specific procedure which has been provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 rest of the procedure as may be applicable from the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be followed by the Consumer Fora while dealing with the complaint or application under Section 27 i.e. while sitting and dealing with the application under Section 27 as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and from that angle, we have analysed the procedure in the earlier part of the judgement.

        The third party application may be permissible in a proceeding under Section 25(1) &(2) as discussed above.  However, third party proceeding is not applicable in case of proceeding under Section 25(3) before the Consumer Fora.  That may be possible while the Collector has taken steps for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. So far as proceeding under Section 27 is concerned, there would not be a third party proceeding, since this is a criminal proceeding where the opponent who is a person allegedly committed an offence as provided under Section 27(1).  This a question is to be considered by the Consumer Fora sitting as Judicial Magistrate of First Class composite.

       (n)     There may be multiple execution applications either under Section 25 or under Section 27 depending upon the facts of the case;

 

Link to the full decision:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48891284/

 

Separate conveyance must for each housing society on one plot

 

Separate conveyance must for each housing society on a plot

Jehangir B Gai | TNN | Mar 22, 2010, 05.17 AM IST

Builder held liable to execute separate conveyance for each society building

 

BACKDROP: It is common to come across builders failing to execute conveyance to retain their hold over the land. This is not permissible, as per a recent ruling of the Consumer Forum for Mumbai Suburban District, in the case of Mamta-D Co-operative Housing Society v/s Gundecha Builders.

 

Case Study: Gundecha Builder had constructed four buildings at Prabhadevi. These were named Mamta-A, B, C and D Co-operative Housing Society. Of these, Mamta-D CHS raised a grievance against the builder, stating that its members had purchased flats by paying the entire consideration and taking possession in December 1984, and thereafter the society was formed and registered in December 1989, yet the conveyance was not executed as required by law. The society also wrote to the builder and demanded that he construct independent boundary walls for their building and execute conveyance. Since the builder failed to pay heed, in May 2001, the society filed a consumer complaint against the builder.

 

The builder contested the complaint. He claimed that that since the four buildings were constructed on one plot of land, it was not possible to get the mutation done in the land records for sub-division of the plots. Consequently, it would not be possible to execute separate conveyance for Mamta-D Society. He claimed that when the construction work on the plot is completed, he would execute the conveyance for all the buildings, and the society should bear with the delay. The builder stated that the complaint was devoid of any merit and should be dismissed. The society claimed that the builder’s stand was incorrect because the four buildings were not joined, each had a separate entrance and it was possible to construct independent boundary walls around each building.

 

After hearing advocates Uday Wavikar and Mr Wankhade for the society and advocate Bhandari for the builder, the forum observed that the builder was bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and was also required to abide by the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). The law casts a duty on a builder to execute conveyance within four months of formation of the society. As this has not been done, the builder is guilty of violating the law and there is a deficiency in the service rendered by him.

 

The Forum noted that in the present case, when the complaint was argued out in the year 2010, the builder had not yet executed conveyance even though more than 20 years had elapsed from the date of formation of the society. The forum also observed that builders try to delay or withhold conveyance to take advantage of any subsequent increase in FSI, which is not legally permissible. Conveyance has to be executed within four months of formation of the society, and in case any additional FSI is available, its benefit accrues to the society which is the real owner of the land.

 

G L Chavan, delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench comprising himself and President Suman Mahajan, upheld the complaint. By an order dated February 26, 2010, the builder was directed to construct an independent boundary wall for the society and also execute conveyance. Six months’ time was given for compliance of this order. In case of non-compliance within this period, the builder was liable to pay a compensation of Rs 50 to the society for each day’s delay. In addition, Rs 5,000 was awarded as costs.

 

Impact: The compensation of Rs 50 per day for each day of default and delay in executing conveyance should send a strong signal to other builders to desist from adopting similar unfair practices.

 

The latest update:

Gundecha Builders filed appeal against this order. The following is the latest status:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI 
APPEAL NO. A/10/369
 
M/S.GUNDECHA BUILDERS Vs. MAMTA D CO-OP. HSG. SOC.LTD.
 
BEFORE: Justice R. C. Chavan, President Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
 
   
Dated : 22nd  June 2015
ORDER: Advocate Mr.Mohit Bhansali is present for the appellant.  Advocate Mr.Uday Wavikar is present for the respondent.  Both the Ld.Counsel state that they are trying to settle the matter amicable and therefore, seek time. Time is granted.  Matter is adjourned to 26/08/2015.