No leniency
should be shown to "unscrupulous litigants" who file
"meritless" petitions in different foras to cover up their faults,
the apex consumer commission has held while asking a real estate company to pay
Rs. 7.7 lakh for not handing over possession of flat in time.
No leniency should be shown to litigants who in order to cover up their own
fault and negligence, go on filing meritless petitions in different foras.
NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) said its order, "Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the other party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands"
NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) said its order, "Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the other party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands"
A bench presided by Justice Mr. V. B Gupta made the observation while dismissing the plea of Dreamland Promoters & Consultants against the Delhi State Consumer Commission's August 18, 2011 order, upholding a District Forum verdict.
Refund, Fine and
Compensation..!
The district
forum had directed the real estate company to refund the Rs.7 lakh paid by
Mr.Pramod Kumar, hailing from Uttar Pradesh, for booking a 2 bedroom flat in a
housing project of the firm and to pay him Rs. 50,000 as compensation.
NCDRC imposed a fine cost of Rs. 20,000
on the Delhi-based firm.
Mr.Pramod Kumar in his complaint had said, that he had booked a 2 bed-room flat in a housing scheme of the company and had deposited a total of Rs. 7 lakh through 2 installments of Rs 3.5 lakh each, on June 6, 2006 & January 19, 2007.
The flat was to be delivered within one year (12 months) from the date of application, however, even after 3 years (36 months), not only was the possession of the flat not delivered to him. But there was also ambiguity regarding the status of the construction, Mr.Pramod Kumar had alleged.
Mr.Pramod Kumar in his complaint had said, that he had booked a 2 bed-room flat in a housing scheme of the company and had deposited a total of Rs. 7 lakh through 2 installments of Rs 3.5 lakh each, on June 6, 2006 & January 19, 2007.
The flat was to be delivered within one year (12 months) from the date of application, however, even after 3 years (36 months), not only was the possession of the flat not delivered to him. But there was also ambiguity regarding the status of the construction, Mr.Pramod Kumar had alleged.
In its written
statement, the real estate company while admitting it had received the Rs. 7
lakh, had contended that subsequent installments had not been paid by Mr.Pramod Kumar, who had filed the complaint
only to harass & defame it.
The NCDRC while dismissing the real estate firm's petition said, "Two fora below have given detailed & reasoned orders which do not call for any interference"
No comments:
Post a Comment