Consumer
cannot protest if he had willingly accepted alternate site. The complainant was
allotted an alternate site which he accepted. Complaint was filed claiming damages from
the authority. From the records it was clear that the complainant had accepted the second
allotment willingly. (S.Kesavulu Naidu v. The Bangalore Development Authority – 1995
(1) CPR 625)
Person who applies for allotment in a scheme is a consumer
The National Commission laid down that the complainant had paid for the cost of the
application form as well as the registration fee. A person who applies for allotment of a
building site or for a flat constructed by the development authority or enters into an
agreement with a builder or a contractor is a potential user and nature of transaction is
covered in the expression ‘service of any description’. (Tamale Nada Housing
Board v. A.V. Ramkrishnan – 1995 (1) CPR 523)
Purchaser is not a consumer
The transaction of the plot was not one of the allotment as part of the scheme for
providing housing facility to the public, but one of the outright sale of immovable
property in an auction. Complaint dismissed as not maintainable. (Geeta Gupta v. Delhi
Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 118)
Communication sent at wrong address is deficiency
The respondent stated that the allotment was cancelled due to default and failure to take
possession as intimated by them. The complainant was awarded Rs 30,000/- as compensation
besides refund of the total amounts paid by the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a.
from the date of the respective deposits and costs. (S.K. Singhal v. Vice Chairman,
Ghaziabad Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 402)
Concealment of relevant information makes the allottee liable for cancellation
The application for voluntary retirement of complainant was disallowed but the complainant
did not tell this fact to DDA and accordingly a flat was allocated to him under the
retired persons quota and he paid the installments as required. As the complainant could
not furnish retirement certificate allotment was cancelled. The complaint was dismissed on
this ground itself. (K.C.Jain v. Delhi Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 138)
Delay in delivery of possession is deficiency
(Priyadarshansheel v. Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board – 1995 (1) CPR 61) in which
case it was held that the Board was negligent in taking up such a project and then not
informing the complainant about the stay order from the High Court but all the time
accepting the installments towards the finance of the flat. The complainant was awarded
refund with 18% interest on the deposits made by him from the date of respective deposits
till realisation thereof. (Lucknow Development Authority v. Manorama Sachan – 1995
(1) CPR 231)
(Delhi Development Authority v. N. Anand Rao – 1995 (1) CPR 119) (Rajasthan Housing
Board v. Narendra Singh Choudhary – 1995 (1) CPR 475) in which case the respondent
was using it as its Goodman. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was granted for six years of
delay.
(Delhi Development Authority v. S. Bhattacharya – 1995 (1) CPR 139)
(Rajasthan Housing Board v. Basant Kaur – 1995 (1) CPR 144) (Indore Development
Authority v. Smt. Sindhu Sudhakar Mendke – 1995 (1) CPR 679) The authority will not
be entitled to recover the surcharge on additional premium and the lease money as it
delayed delivery of possession even after the flat was completed. (R.V.Venkataswamiah v.
The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 296)
(Lucknow Development Authority v. Shiv Baran Singh – 1995 (1) CPR 664) (M/s. Aradhna
Steels v. M/s. Regency Industries Ltd., - 1995 (1) CPR 140)
(Saeed Mustafa Shervani v. M/s. Regency Industries Ltd., - 1995 (1) CPR 141)
(Mrs. Asha Kumar v. M/s. Skipper Builders Pvt.Ltd. – 1995 (1) CPR 257)
(Skipper Bhavan (22 Barakhamba Roads Flat Buyers Association) v. M/s. Skipper Sales (Pvt.)
Ltd. – 1995 (1) CPR 784)
Deliberate delay to force the allottees to pay more is deficiency (Sanjay Nagar Residents
Welfare Association v. The Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development authority -
1995 (1) CPR 7632) (General Consumer Protection and welfare Association v.
Ghaziabad Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 643)
- Existence of defects in construction at the time of delivery is deficiency
(Goparaju
Vidyasagar v. Duggirala Sushila – 1995 (1) CPR 49)
- (Mrs. Gowramma v. Bangalore Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 181)
- (M/s. Orange City Builders P.Ltd. v. Sanjay Bhaskar Gawai – 1995 (1) CPR 670)
- (Pushpa Pathania v. Rajasthan Housing Board – 1995 (1) CPR 239)
- Failure to deliver possession for want of statutory permission is deficiency
(Shant H.
Chipalkatti vs. VGP Housing (P) Ltd., -1995 (1) CPR 3)
- (Dr. Atul Verma v. Gwalior Vikas – 1995 (1) CPR 75)
- (M/s. Vijay Jyoti Housing Pvt.Ltd. v. Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba -
1995 (1) CPR 91)
- Payment of installments is co-extensive with the progress of construction
(Kanwal Khanna
v. Ansal Properties & Industries (P) Ltd. 1995 (1) CPR 93)
Employee in service occupation is a consumer
State of Rajasthan while allotting various categories of houses to its employees does
render service for consideration and any person who hires or avails of this service for
consideration is a consumer.(Executive Engineer, PWD vs. Gopal Das – 1995 (1) CPR 20)
Charging for excessive super area is deficiency
The words ‘approximate’ referred in the agreement could only mean a difference
of a few feet and not 25 to 30% of the agreed area as super area. This arrangement
by the builder is an unfair trade practice. (Dr. Raghubir Singh Jain v. Ansal Housing
& Construction Ltd., - 1995 (1) CPR 98)
(Suresh Kumar Malani v. Pearl Developers P.Ltd. – 1995 (1) CPR 408)
(P.Ramakrishnan v. M/s. Mahalaksmi Land & finance Co. (P) Ltd. – 1995 (1) CPR
100)
(Harcharan Singh v. Bhanot Properties - 1995 (1) CPR 130)
Consumer
cannot claim the parking area he had already given up
Complainant failed to produce the approval plan of construction to show that in the matter
of parking spaces the respondent had committed any deficiency in service.
(Srichand
K.Bajaj v. S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council – 1995 (1) CPR 769)
Giving
lesser area than that which is stipulated in the agreement is deficiency
Held, there is shortcoming in the manner of performance which was required from the Board
in pursuance of the contract between the parties. (M.P. Housing Board v. Dr. Suresh Sharma
– 1995 (1) CPR 84)
(Sarika Griha Nirman Samiti., Gwalior v. Akhlesh Dixit – 1995 (1) CPR 156)
Failure
to execute sale deed is negligence
Directions were issued to transfer and execute the sale deed in respect of the
complainant’s 1/35th undivided share in the composite property besides Rs. 1500/- as
costs . (P.R. Mansukhani v. M/s. Comfort Homes - 1995 91) CPR 803)
Negligence
must be proved to claim compensation (Rajni Bhatnagar v. Gwalior Development Authority
– 1995 (1) CPR 759)
Additional
demand has to be explained
The Board had no justification to raise the further demand. Admittedly the cash down was
paid in instalments as and when the housing building advance was released to the
complainant. Therefore the imposition of penalty was not questionable. The Board was
further directed to register a conveyance deed in favour of the complainant on receipt of
the requisite stamp duty Rs. 5000/- was granted as compensation (Satish Popali v.
Executive Engineer, Housing Board – 1995 (1) CPR 569)
Customer
has to pay floor-wise price fixed by the authority (P.N.Bhargava v. DDA – 1995 (1)
CPR 132)
Interest
cannot be imposed arbitrarily
As regards interest the respondent could not establish under what provision it had imposed
interest. The interest so paid was directed to be refunded with interest @12% p.a. from
the date of the deposit till payment thereof (Harbans Lal Malhotra v. Vice Chairman, Delhi
Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 108) (Wg. Cdr. Anil Roy v. Chairman, Bangalore
Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 299)
(Naresh Chand Jain v. State of Delhi – 1995 (1) CPR 113) The complainant did not
deposit the instalment on time on the ground that the flat allotted to him was not in the
area he had opted for. The registration was cancelled. Complaint was dismissed as the flat
could not be restored to the complainant.
Pricing of flats cannot be adjudicated by consumer forums
Under the Consumer Protection Act the pricing policy cannot be challenged after the
allottee has taken possession of the house. The question of pricing of the flat by Housing
Authority or Board is not a consumer dispute. If any amount is illegally charged by the
Housing Authority or Board Forum for the consumer is to recover it from the Housing Board
through a Civil Court. (Housing Board, Harlan v. Karat Singh – 1995 (1) CPR 269)
Provisional
allotment does not envisage final cost
After issuance of the provisional allotment letter the complainant was able to raise
housing loan which was paid to the Board on 27.3.1989. Allotment cum possession letter was
issued on 20.4.1989. Thus the complainant was bound to pay the premium of the land and the
cost of construction as worked out on the date of allotment dated 20.4.1989.
(Babu Lal
Gupta vs. Rajasthan Housing Board – 1995 (1) CPR 12)
Board is liable to give the same rate of interest which it charges from its defaulters
(Niranjan Kumar Dosi v. Rajasthan Housing Board – 1995 (1) CPR 472)
Board is not liable if refund is made within time (Haryana Urban Development Authority v.
Kailash Devi – 1995 (1) CPR 840)
Customer is to be compensated if his file is misplaced (Rajasthan Housing Board v.
Shakuntala Vajpayee – 1995 (1) CPR 122)
Delay inspite of order form the High Court is deficiency (The Spartaeous Co-operative
Group Housing Society Limited v. Delhi Development Authority – 1995 (1) CPR 325)
Inaction by the consumer himself is not deficiency on the part of the authority
(Ghaziabad
Development Authority v. Vinod Kumar Bansal – 1995 (1) CPR 241)
Promoter is liable to refund the amount with interest
The construction project could not be launched and the respondent failed to repay the
deposits. The promoter was directed to refund the amount of deposits with interest @ 18%
p.a. from the rate of the respective deposits and costs Rs. 1000/-. (Public Sector
Employees Welfare & Society – 1995 (1) CPR 473)
(Mrs. Rajam Subramanian v. REG Constructions – 1995 (1) CPR 757) Madras State
Commission awarded 24% on the deposits besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs Rs.
2,000/-.
