National Consumer Redressal Commission fines Ansals 27.3 lakhs

New Delhi, June 26 Frowning on real estate developers who refuse to pay compensation for delayed deliveries, a court here has fined leading builders er Ansal Properties and Infrastructure (API) Rs. 27.3 lakhs for not handing over an apartment on time.

The National Consumer Redressal Commission also asked API to pay it Rs.50,000 for the 'rough behaviour' of one of its officials.

The case dates to 1998 when Kunj Behari Mehta booked an apartment in the Celebrity Homes complex API was developing in the Palam Vihar neighbourhood of west Delhi.

He deposited Rs.2.62 million and was promised possession in three and a half years.

When this did not happen, Mehta filed a case with the commission seeking damages of 24 percent per annum from the booking date to the delivery date on the amount he had deposited.

API contended that such heavy compensation was not justified since the price of the property had also appreciated in the meanwhile.

A two-member bench of the commission, headed by its president, Justice M.B. Shah, and member, Anupam Dasgupta, in its judgement earlier this week disagreed with the company.

'In our view such contention of any builder is unjustified and unreasonable because after sale of the property, all the benefits accrue to the purchaser and not to the vendor,' the commission maintained.

'In any case, if such contention is accepted, the builders would earn millions of rupees by delaying the delivery of the possession of the flat for months together for one reason or the other,' it added.

The commission ordered that the Rs.2.73 million fine be handed over to Mehta, who was finally given possession of the apartment late last year.

'If the price of an immovable property increases, it cannot be said that the parties are not required to abide by their contractual obligations,' the commission said.

'In any case, it is the luck of the owner that the price of the property has increased and it cannot be said that it is for the benefit of the vendor.

'The builder of the property cannot claim advantage on account of increase in price after sale,' the commission ruled.

The commission also fined API Rs.50,000 for the high-handed and rough behaviour of its manager and ordered the money to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

National Consumer panel upholds Ahmedabad consumer body plea

"Power of Attorney (POA) holder is entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act."

Ahmedabad, Jan 5 (IANS) In a landmark judgement, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an insurance firm to pay a man Rs.10,000 as damages for a malfunctioning television set, though the petition was rejected earlier because the man's parents had filed the complaint on his behalf, armed with a power of attorney.

The India Assurance Co. Ltd will also have to pay the Durga Dalal an interest of 10 percent per year on the amount, starting Jan 1, 2003, the New Delhi-based commission ruled.

Local consumer forums here had rejected the complaint earlier because someone armed with a power of attorney (POA) had filed it.

There is a legal debate in Indian courts on whether POA holders can file a case on the behalf of a victim.

The panel, which was deciding on a "revision petition" filed by Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS) here, held that a POA holder was entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Earlier, the district forum here had dismissed the complaint as "non-maintainable" on this ground. The Gujarat State Commission had also held that that the case did not stand. But the commission set their orders aside.

The parents of Durga Dalal alleged that the television had broken down suddenly and the insurance company was bound to reimburse consumers on the basis of a household policy. Durga had bought the TV set.

On July 30, 2002, his parents filed a claim for Rs.30,000. When the insurance company did not pay, they approached the district forum.

The insurance company held it had offered to pay Rs.10,000, though its surveyor had reported that the TV set was very old and valued at Rs.8,500-9,500. It also said the damage was caused by wear and tear that was not covered under the scope of the insurance policy.

The National Commission said the state commission and the district forum had taken "an over-technical view" in dismissing the complaint by "holding that father/mother of an aggrieved person or his power of attorney was not entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986".

"This is erroneous," the National Commission observed. "It is to be reiterated that under the Act, technicalities are not to be encouraged because the only procedure prescribed under the Act, is to follow principles of natural justice and to decide the matter after hearing both parties."

Consumer Court asks ICICI Bank to pay 55 lakhs

New Delhi, Nov 5 (IANS) Coming down heavily on ICICI bank for employing goons to beat up a consumer for recovery of a loan, a consumer court here has fined the bank Rs.5.5 million.

The Delhi Consumer Commission passed the ruling while ordering the bank to pay Rs.500,000 compensation to a consumer who was beaten up by recovery agents who took away a loaned car from him.

"No civilised society governed by rule of law can brook such kind of conduct," the commission's president Justice J.D. Kapoor said, describing the methods adopted by the recovery agents as a serious violation of human rights.

The commission held the bank guilty of "unfair trade practice" and expressed its ire on it for flouting the Supreme Court's direction that restrained financial institutions from employing musclemen to recover loans.

The commission issued notices to ICICI and the CEO of the recovery agency, seeking explanations for violation of the apex court's directions.

Its order came while hearing a complaint by Tapan Bose, whose loaned car was taken away by recovery agents after they beat up his friend's son with iron rods on Jan 8, resulting in serious injuries.

No vehicle delivery without registration: consumer forum

Ahmedabad, Oct 8 (IANS) The Consumer Redressal Forum of Ahmedabad city has held that delivery of a motor vehicle without a temporary registration number was improper and contravened provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The forum's order related to purchase of a Maruti Wagon-R bought from Cargo (Motors) Gujarat Pvt Ltd in 2004. The car was delivered at the buyer's residence without any temporary registration number.

When the dealer's representative collected the car for registration at the regional transport office (RTO), it was damaged due to an accident. When the representative informed the buyer about the accident on phone, the buyer refused to accept the car.

After the buyer's repeated reminders to the dealer to get the car redone evoked no response, the Consumer Education Research Society intervened and helped file a complaint before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

Maruti Udyog Ltd (MUL) and Cargo Motors contended that it was not a consumer complaint. They held that once the vehicle was delivered, it was the duty of the consumer to get it registered with the RTO and obtain a temporary or permanent registration number.

They also denied any liability to refund the amount or repair the vehicle free of cost. They argued that the service provided to the buyer was a gesture of goodwill. Moreover, the negligence was not on the part of the representative of the dealer who drove the car at the time of accident.

The forum decided that the delivery of the car to the complainant without a temporary registration number was in contravention of Rule 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989.

It also noted that the dealer's contention that delivery of the vehicle was under "extraordinary circumstances" could not be substantiated.

The forum relied on the precedence cited by the National Commission in another case in 2006, which held that it cannot be said that "agent or dealer is not jointly and severally liable for the defects in the machine as the contract is through the dealer though the liability for the manufacturing defects is to be borne by the manufacturer".

The Forum also said the dealer firm had contradicted its own statements by averring differently on the status of registration.

Holding that the complainant had a contract with all the opponents, the forum ordered MUL and Cargo Motors to jointly pay Rs.3,94,662 (the full price of the car, including expenses like registration and municipal charges) to the complainant within two months from the date of the order.

The Forum also ordered MUL and Cargo Motors to pay Rs.2,000 towards cost to the complainant.

Consumer disputes redressal forum to be computerised: Pawar

New Delhi, Aug 17 (IANS) In a move to further streamline their functioning, consumer redressal forums in states would be computerised and networked by the year-end at a cost of Rs.486.4 million, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said Friday.

Inaugurating a two-day conference at Vigyan Bhavan marking the 20th Foundation Day of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pawar said the project was in its final year and was being executed by the National Informatics Centre on a turnkey basis.

He said the government was in the process of strengthening the commission by increasing the number of members to nine from the existing five.

Though the overall performance of the forum has been satisfactory with nearly 88 percent of the 2.8 million cases filed so far disposed off, the minister said there was a need to "change the common man's perception that the consumer fora had slipped onto the path of civil courts, making litigation long drawn out and taking several years to dispose of even cases involving small compensation".

Pawar said it was time to change the common criticism that the orders of the consumer forum are not swift and do not hit the offenders where it hurts them most, and it is not even taken seriously by the offenders.

Though the state commissions and district forum are the responsibility of state governments to ensure that their functioning is not hampered due to lack of infrastructure, the central government has been extending liberal assistance in the form of grants so that there is no resource constraint, he said.

As part of the central government's encouragement to consumer courts in states and districts, the government was spending liberally in providing all requisite infrastructure and has already sanctioned Rs.980 million to 18 states and Rs.474.4 million to 16 state governments as the first tranche of assistance, Pawar said.