LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Ss. 11 (1), 21 (a) (i), 17 (1) (a) (i) and 24A –

Allotment-Complainants applied for-Payments in installments-Terms and conditions of allotment-It is the case of complainants that respective date of possession have long expired but opposite party has failed to complete construction and deliver possession of respective apartments to complainant-Pecuniary jurisdiction-Interest claimed by apartment buyer is in nature of compensation-Held case should be dealt with under Clause 4 (e) of subject Builder Buyer Agreement, which provides that if opposite party is not in a position to offer possession of apartment to allottee, opposite party shall refund consideration amount received with 10% p.a.-Opposite party is liable to refund money received from the complainants with 10% p.a. on amount w.e.f. dates of respective payments of installments-Directions issued-Complaint allowed.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Force Majeure -- Complaint against developer for delayed possession – Developer took the plea of Force Majeure on the ground that Authority failed to supply electricity in time – Documents revealed that the Developer made payment to Authority for electric at a much later date -- The plea of Force Majeure circumstances does not stand – Award for registration in favour of the complainant along the penal interest and compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; S.24A – Limitation to lodge consumer complaint – Delay of more than two years since arising of cause of action – Held: after accepting almost the entire consideration amount it is bounden duty on the part of developer/builder to deliver possession and to execute the sale deed and unless it is done, the cause of action is a continuous one.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; After purchase an overseas travel insurance policy the Petitioner was underwent Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery and thereby spent 12,005 pounds -- Respondent repudiated the reimbursement and taken plea that the complainant have past medical history of hypercholestremia, Ischaemic Heart Disease as well as hypertension, which were excluded as per the insurance contract -- District Forum directed the Company to pay an amount of Rs.7,19,500/- for medical score with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.2200/as litigation expenses.” -- State Commission allowed the same on appeal on the ground that complainant had obtained insurance policy by concealing the factum of his previous ailment, namely, hypertension, which has a nexus with the heart problem -- Revision allowed by NCDRC in favour of Claimant with observation that plea of concealment of material fact was not taken by the opposite party in the repudiation letter -- no evidence shown that the petitioner despite of having knowledge of his ailment concealed this fact in proposal form -- having history of hypertension does not lead to conclusion that petitioner was also having previous history of heart problem – heart problem cannot be termed as a claim in respect of a pre existing disease.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.04.2010 was executed between them ------ The Builder was required to deliver possession of the flat to the Complainants within 36 months from the date of the Buyer’s Agreement ----- The grievance of the Complainants was that the Builder had failed to offer possession to them within the time period stipulated in the Buyer’s Agreement ------ Commission found that none of the reasons given by the Builder for the delay, such as non-availability of construction material or labour, were tenable ----- The Commission also rejected the argument of the Builder regarding government regulations and economic recession being a justification of the delay ----- The Buyer’s Agreement was entered into by Complainants with almost no bargaining power and under the threat of losing the earnest money ------ Further, under the Buyer’s Agreement, in case of delay in payment by the Complainant, an interest at a rate ranging from 18% to 24% per annum compounded annually was charged.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant citing breach of Condition No. 1, i.e. immediate information about the loss/theft of the vehicle ------ Held: If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay ----- it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator ----- The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine ----- It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction ----- It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle ----- Claim petition is allowed.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Rejection of Insurance claim – Insurance by home loan borrower – On 29.09.2008 premium was deducted from loan account towards Insurance company -- Proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was accompanied by good health declaration by the insured – Insured person died on 17.12.2009 – Neither the bank nor the insurance company had ever informed the proposer or the appellant herein about the non-issuance of policy for want of medical certificate -- in the case of joint housing loan the full loan amount will be insured even if the policy is issued in the name of only one loanee -- Claim to pay the outstanding loan amount rejected – State Commission allowed the claim – National Commission set aside the order of State Commission – Supreme Court upheld the observation of State Commission.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Delay in delivery of possession – Direction to refund the entire amount along with 10% simple interest per annum and compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Mr. Pradeep Narula booked a residential apartment with Granite Gate Properties ------ In furtherance to booking a residential apartment with the Builder, the Builder issued an allotment letter dated June 28, 2010 to the Complainant. Additionally, the parties entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement on June 29, 2010, according to which, the Builder was to endeavor to complete the construction within 39 months from the date of allotment, i.e. the possession was to be delivered by September 27, 2013 ----- The possession however was not offered to the Complainant by the said date and he was informed that the possession would not be given before July 2014. The aforesaid deadline was later extended till December 31, 2014. Being aggrieved by the said delay, the Complainant approached the Commission against the Builder ------ Held: he Commission held that the Builder was under a contractual obligation to complete the construction and hand over possession of the apartments to the Complainant within 39 months from the date of allotment, and the Builder had failed to do so and none of the reasons given by the Builder were justified ----- The Commission directed the Builder to complete the construction and hand over possession before 31.01.2017, failing which, they were to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the committed date of possession till the date possession is offered to the apartment owner. Accordingly the Commission ordered the Builder to pay to the Complainant, compensation to the same effect as mentioned in the Apartment Buyers Agreement ------ The Builder was also required to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant.