Skip to main content

Unitech to pay over Rs 60 lakh for failing to deliver apartment

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Limited to pay over Rs 60 lakh to a Gurgaon resident for not giving him possession of an apartment booked a decade ago at Greater Noida. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the firm to pay the amount with an interest of 18 percent per annum, from the date the total demand amount was deposited with the Unitech, which is also facing several other complaints, including a joint claim by 144 home-buyers. A bench headed by Justice J M Malik held that the desire to acquire the property had "ruined the life" of the buyer and the real estate major "harassed" him by asking "for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of project". The consumer commission directed the firm to pay Rs 59,98,560 to Sanjay Arora, who had booked the flat in Sector Pi II, Greater Noida, in 2006, besides Rs one lakh for compensation and litigation charges. "As a matter of fact, the desire to acquire the above said apartment has ruined the life of the complainant. This is an admitted fact that the opposite party (firm) cannot hand over the apartment in dispute in favour of the complainant (Arora) because opposite party does not seem to make much headway with its project. "After the lapse of 8-9 years, he is offering another apartment, which was rightly refused by the complainant because this apartment will also carry with it so many other problems," the bench said. In its order, the bench also noted that a number of cases against Unitech Ltd were pending before it, including a joint claim by 144 complainants. "The opposite party harassed the complainant by asking for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of the project. The complainant fell sick and was admitted in hospitals one after the another... The action of the opposite party qua the complainant is below the belt," the bench said. "The opposite party will pay a sum of Rs 59,98,560, along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of its deposit till its realisation. The complainant is also granted compensation for harassment, mental agony, anger, anguish, frustration and sadness, a sum of Rs 50,000 and litigation charges in the sum of Rs 50,000...," it said. According to the complaint, Arora had booked the apartment in November 2006 and it was to be given within 36 months. However, the flat has not been delivered till the present day. The firm, however, had denied all the allegations.

Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/unitech-to-pay-over-rs-60-lakh-for-failing-to-deliver-apartment_6716701.html?utm_source=ref_article

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a