Back
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, AJITH KUMAR D., RADHAKRISHNAN K. R.
T. Gangadharan – Appellant
Versus
P. J. Homes – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The 1st complainant is the father of the 2nd complainant. The complainants had an intention to settle down in an around Kazhakkuttom area Thiruvananthapuram. They had seen the advertisements made by the opposite parties in the newspapers and internet regarding a land and villa project proposed by the opposite parties at Aiyroorpara Village in the name “Garden View”. The project contemplates construction of villas in the land comprising a total extent of 94.55 cents comprised in Sy.No.145/24-18 of Aiyroorpara Village. The complainants were to get ownership of 4.20 cents of land along with undivided right in respect of 1.5 cents of land along with Villa No.B3 constructed by the opposite parties.
3. On 25.07.2012 the opposite parties had collected an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) from the complainants as earnest money towards the confirmation of allotment. Sale deed with respect of transfer of 4.20 cents of land along with undivided right of 1.5 cents of land was executed on 02.07.2012 in favour of the 2nd complainant. On 27.07.2012 an agr
Adequate Compensation – The conduct of the complainants in this regard is to mislead this Commission. But that alone may not be a ground to deprive the complainants from seeking adequate compensation....
1) Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opp. Party in relying on force majeure clause while retaining amounts deposited by the Complainant....
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....
Consumers are entitled to a refund with interest if the promised service is not delivered, irrespective of arbitration clauses.
(1) Unreasonable delay – in a case of an unreasonable delay in offering possession of the allotted flat, the consumer cannot be compelled to accept possession at a belated stage and is entitled to se....
(1) Consumer Protection Act - Complainant has chosen his remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, his complaint before this Commission is perfectly maintainable and there is no embargo in proceeding....
Contract - A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder.
Court held that one-sided contractual terms favoring builders amount to unfair trade practices under consumer laws, entitling buyers to refunds and compensation for delays.
Failure to deliver possession constitutes deficiency in service, validating consumer refunds with interest.
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
