NCDRC cautions district forum, asks it to appreciate facts

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Apr 21 2017 | 7:43 PM IST
The apex consumer commission has cautioned a district forum to appreciate correct law and facts of a case and said a person booking a flat in an upcoming property comes under the category of 'consumer'.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) made the observation while pulling up the district forum over its order rejecting the complaint of a home-buyer who had sought a refund of Rs 3.5 lakh from the builder.
The NCDRC's order came on a revision petition filed by the builder, a Kolkata-based real estate firm, against the state commission's decision in favour of complainant Monoj Chowdhury.
The district forum had dismissed the complaint, after noting that Chowdhury, a Kolkata resident, got a refund of Rs 1.5 lakh from the builder, and "he ceased to be a consumer".
The NCDRC rejected this finding and observed, "The complainant (Chowdhary) having booked a property in the building to be constructed by the petitioner (builder) does come within the category of 'consumer'."
"It is not understood as to how district forum observed that after accepting the refund of Rs 1.5 lakh the complainant ceases to be a consumer. The forum was expected to show correct appreciation of law and facts while dealing with the case," a bench headed by presiding member B C Gupta said.
According to the complaint, Chowdhary had booked a property for Rs 11 lakh and paid Rs five lakh as advance to the builder. The rest of the amount had to be paid before handing over the possession.
The complaint alleged that the firm was not able to construct the building and refunded Rs 1.5 lakh to Chowdhary.
The builder contended that the sanctioned plan could not be obtained from the Municipal Corporation for construction of the building and they had been making payment to the complainants, but due to lack of funds, he could not refund the entire money.
"The petitioner (builder) has admitted in his written reply before the district forum that he refunded a part amount of Rs 1.5 lakh to the complainant, but was unable to refund the rest of the amount due to lack of funds," the NCDRC said.
"The petitioner is duty bound to return the balance money deposited by the complainant forthwith, alongwith interest at the rate allowed by the State Commission," it said.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 21 2017 | 7:43 PM IST

Next Story