Con­sumer re­dres­sal panel: Re­fund ap­pli­cants’ money with 18 per cent in­ter­est

Consumer Voice - - In The News -

Hold­ing that the Greater Noida In­dus­trial De­vel­op­ment Au­thor­ity (GNIDA) and the State Bank of In­dia (SBI) had in­dulged in un­fair trade prac­tice in mis­lead­ing the ap­pli­cant-home­buy­ers, a bench of the Delhi State Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Com­mis­sion has or­dered re­fund of money de­posited along with an 18 per cent in­ter­est.

The bench of SC Jain and NP Kaushik also or­dered each party to pay Rs 2.5 lakh as com­pen­sa­tion to each com­plainant for “caus­ing ha­rass­ment, in­con­ve­nience, sad­ness, an­guish and men­tal agony”, and also to de­posit Rs 25 lakh each in the Con­sumer Wel­fare Fund of the state main­tained by the Com­mis­sion for mak­ing good the loss “caused to those flat buy­ers who have been de­clared suc­cess­ful in the draw of lots and have not come to the Con­sumer Fora and are not iden­ti­fi­able con­ve­niently.”

The com­plainants, who had been de­clared suc­cess­ful in draw of lots for flats to be con­structed by GNIDA, had sur­ren­dered the same. GNIDA re­funded only 50 per cent of their ini­tial de­posit on the plea that their sur­ren­der let­ter had come af­ter the ex­piry of the 45-day pe­riod from the date of is­suance of let­ter of al­lot­ment.

How­ever, the com­plainants, who had taken loan from SBI, pointed out that they had re­ceived their let­ters from SBI and not GNIDA, that too with just a few days re­main­ing for the 45-day pe­riod to lapse.

In its or­der, the State Com­mis­sion noted that both SBI and GNIDA were in a “dom­i­nant po­si­tion vis-à-vis the com­plainants” and that the “com­plainants have been run­ning from pil­lar to post to re­ceive their let­ters of al­lot­ment.”

One car per flat in so­ci­ety park­ing lots: Delhi HC

The Delhi high court has ruled that a flat owner can park only one ve­hi­cle in a des­ig­nated slot in­side the com­plex un­less granted ex­emp­tion.

The rules framed by a co­op­er­a­tive so­ci­ety would be fi­nal in this re­gard, the court said while fin­ing a res­i­dent Rs 1 lakh and dis­miss­ing his plea de­mand­ing ac­cess to more than one slot as he has four cars. Com­mon ar­eas in a so­ci­ety are meant for use by all mem­bers and not to park cars, the court said.

A bench of Jus­tices Gita Mit­tal and IS Me­hta said, “Air pol­lu­tion is not the only en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact that ve­hi­cles cause. Park­ing of ex­cess cars in open ar­eas re­duces avail­able space un­der­neath them for rain­wa­ter har­vest­ing, which en­ables charg­ing of aquifers – an­other ad­verse im­pact on en­vi­ron­ment.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.