Back
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
Animesh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Raheja Developers Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
Heard Mr. S. Surender, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Advocate, for opposite party-1.
2. Above complaint has been filed, for directing opposite party-1 to (i) refund Rs.7446104/- (i.e. the loan amount) with interest @18% per annum from the date of disbursement till the actual payment to the complainant, (ii) refund Rs.2411026/- with interest @18% per annum, from the date of deposit till the date of payment, (iii) pay Rs.55226/- per month with interest @18% per annum, as Pre-EMI paid by the complainant to opposite party-2, (iv) pay Rs.500000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (v) pay Rs.2/- lacs, as the costs of litigation; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that M/s. Raheja Developers Limited (opposite party-1) (the builder) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects and selling its units to the prospective buyers. ICICI Bank Limited (opposite party-2) was a banking company and used to provide financial assistance to the public. The builder launch
Liability of Interests - 60 days period expired on 28.02.2018 but full amount of the complainant has not been refunded as such the builder is liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of res....
(1) Purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction – purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Residential buyers are consumers; builders liable for delayed possession sans force majeure proof; refund with interest from deposit dates.
Consumers are entitled to refunds with interest when developers fail to deliver property due to one-sided contract terms viewed as unfair trade practices.
Dotted lines - A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder.
For deficiency in service on part of Developer, refund of amount deposited by respective allotees directed.
Valid Possession – Mere completion of structure cannot be said that the Apartment is ready for valid possession.
A developer's failure to deliver possession of a property within a reasonable time constitutes deficiency of service under consumer protection laws.
Consumers are entitled to refunds as per contract when builders fail to meet obligations, irrespective of claims of investment for profit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
