Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Macrotech Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
A. Syamala Reddy – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member.—The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Macrotech Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “builder company”) assailing the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaint no. 36 of 2015 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.
2. There is a delay of 121 days in filing the present appeal.
In the interest of justice and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) applied for Villa no. 600, 4 BHK on the 6th floor of the Bellezza Benicia project by Lodha Healthy Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.2,28,38,517/-. On 25.04.2011, the complainant paid Rs.4,50,000/- by cheque to secure the allotment. The application forms issued by the builder company, including the complainant, specified a payment schedule linked to construction progress. The builder comp
(1) Multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justifiable. (2) Forfeiture of amount – Cancellation of allotment – Deduction of more than 10% of deposit as earnest money held invalid.
(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.
The builder's delay in possession constituted deficiency of service, requiring compensation with interest under consumer protection law.
Incorporation of one-sided clauses – The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it....
Pecuniary jurisdiction – it is clear that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdict....
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed d....
“Since the possession of subject flats were not delivered within the stipulated time, allottee held entitled for refund of amount deposited with interest.”
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
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
