National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Booking Commercial Space For Self-Employment Business Deemed As Commercial Purpose : National Consumer Commission The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), in a complaint against MVL Holding Ltd ruled that commercial space...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), in a complaint against MVL Holding Ltd ruled that commercial space booked for doing business by way of self-employment comes under the definition of commercial purpose. The complaint was dismissed on the aforementioned ground.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), in a case against Jalandhar Improvement Trust, held that after a judgment is pronounced, the commission becomes functus officio (having performed the office), and it cannot be modified to award a higher penal interest and additional compensation.
High Court of Bombay
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has held that it is improper for a homebuyer to appeal before the Appellant Tribunal (MahaREAT) claiming that a concession recorded by the Authority (MahaRERA) was erroneous, without first filing an application before MahaRERA to review the order.
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
TNREAT Orders Hiranandani Realtors To Register The Entire Township Project Under RERA As One Unit
Case Title: M/Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited vs Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member), has ordered Hiranandani Realtors to register the entire Township project, which includes many high-rise buildings, under The Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) as one unit. Furthermore, Tribunal has also ordered Hiranandani Realtors to return 70% of the total corpus fund and all documents related to the township project to the allottees association.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, Delhi
Case Title: M/s Capital Builders vs Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Excel Motors, Mitsubishi's authorised Service Centre liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the vehicle despite Complainant paying Rs. 3,44,000/-. The bench directed the service centre to refund Rs.3,44,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur-II
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur-II bench comprising Dr Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Afsana Khan (Member) held Spice Jet liable for deficiency in services of providing seat filled with dirt and no safety vest with the Complainant's seat. The bench directed Spice Jet to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Annie Gupta vs Turkish Airlines and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sandhu (President) and BM Sharma (Member) held Turkish Airlines liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to refund the full amount of the ticket which was cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown imposed by the Government of India. The bench directed the airline to refund the remaining balance amount of Rs. 2315/- to the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Issues New Standard Operating Procedure For Withdrawal Of Project Registration
Title: Letter 2809/UPRERA/ 2023-2024
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for withdrawal of project registration. The SOP has been released to meet the demands of those promoters who fail to continue with real estate projects due to reasons such as lack of demand and financial crises.
Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case Title: Selvaraj Damiyon Raju & anr vs Forever Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta (Chairman) and Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member), has held that the Affordable Housing Policy (amendment) 2019 cannot be applied retrospectively to alter the financial obligations outlined in the pre-existing agreement. Accordingly, the tribunal has set aside the order dated 27.09.2022, issued by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('Authority').
Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)
Odisha RERA To Provide The Details Of Past Real Estate Projects Of Promoters To Allottees
Order No.: 1704/ORERA
The Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has issued a directive under Section 37 of the RERA 2016, requiring promoters, builders, and developers to disclose details of their previous projects at the time of registering a new real estate project.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Vijesh Bahadu vs Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. noting that the Complainant had earlier already settled a claim with the insurance company on a net salvage basis and sold the vehicle to a third party, without informing the insurance company. The bench held that this rendered the Complainant unqualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Amazon and its listed seller, V.K. Knitting Industries liable for unfair and restrictive trade practices for selling socks under the name of 'Marc Jacobs', which in reality had the branding of 'MARC'. Amazon continued to list it under Marc Jacobs' brand name for 4 years and the seller failed to cease the sale.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Rahil Mahajan vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held IRCTC, Northern Railway and Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for serving hot soup with a dead cockroach and expired bread to the Complainant when he was travelling with his mother on Shatabdi Express from New Delhi to Chandigarh. The bench directed them to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to he Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Raj Jindal and Anr. vs Air India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for cancellation of a flight without providing operational reasons which caused inconvenience to the Complainants. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation expenses.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
MahaREAT Orders Larsen And Toubro (L&T) To Pay Interest For The Delayed Possession To The Homebuyer
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has ordered L & T Parel project LLP to pay interest to the allottee for the delayed possession of the flat, which the allottee booked in the L & T Crescent Bay Project Parel, Mumbai.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UP RERA Issues Directive To Include Co-Allottee's Name In Complaints
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued an office notice addressing a common issue found in pending complaints across various benches. The notice highlights the absence of co-allottees names in complaints filed by the primary complainant.
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member), has held that if the sale agreement stipulates that the promoter will earn interest on the corpus fund, then the promoter is liable to pay interest on the corpus fund, regardless of whether they actually earned any interest from it.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held the construction firm liable for the misapplication of consideration money by the erstwhile partner. The consideration money of Rs. 22 lakh was paid by the homebuyers to the erstwhile partner of the construction firm to book a flat.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UP-RERA Introduces Digitally Signed QR-Coded Project Registration Certificate
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has introduced digitally signed QR-coded project registration certificates and directed builders to prominently display these certificates featuring QR codes at both corporate and project site offices.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has released a discussion paper addressing the maintenance and operation of bank accounts for registered real estate projects. This initiative aligns with Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates that seventy percent (70%) of the funds collected for real estate projects from allottees must be deposited in a separate account maintained by a scheduled bank.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member) has granted the homebuyer permission to withdraw from the real estate project due to delayed possession. Accordingly, the Authority directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest.