Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: March 2024
Apoorva Pandita
4 April 2024 8:30 AM IST
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) The Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs Releases Report On The Implementation Status Of The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) has released the implementation status report of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, commonly known as RERA, in India....
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA)
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) has released the implementation status report of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, commonly known as RERA, in India. This legislation, which came into effect on May 1, 2017, aims to protect homebuyers and promote investments in the real estate industry by establishing a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in each state for the regulation of the real estate sector and acting as an adjudicating body for speedy dispute resolution.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Mr Justice A.P. Sahi (President) upheld the Chandigarh State Commission's order against Superb MRI and C.T. Scan, a diagnosis and scanning centre, which furnished an incorrect MRI Scan which led to delayed treatment, resulting in the loss of vision in the Complainant's left eye, attributed to an undiagnosed malignant growth in the optic nerve. The appeal filed by the Scanning Centre was dismissed.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee, held that although medical professionals are not required to maintain the utmost skill levels at all times, they are still required to offer a reasonable standard of skill and care.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra And Sadhna Shanker, held New India Assurance liable for deficiency in service due to the denial of an insurance claim over an arbitrary survey report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) reiterated that Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to entertain claims/damages involving motor vehicles. Such claims could only be adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) by virtue of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
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.
Karnataka High Court
Case: Sri Mathew Thomas V/S State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has directed the State government of Karnataka to expeditiously appoint chairperson and members to Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), which has become non-functional due to these vacant posts.
Bombay High Court
Case: Wadhwa Group Housing Private Ltd V/s. Mr. Vijay Choksi and SSS Escatics Pvt. Ltd
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has held that promoters who are part of a real estate project but haven't received any consideration from the allottee will still be classified as “Promoters” under Section 2(zk). Consequently, they will be liable to refund the amount with interest to the allottees under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Competition Commission of India
Case Title: Vivek Gupta vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
The Competition Commission of India bench comprising Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member) and Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member) dismissed an Information submitted against New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) alleging abuse of dominance in the relevant market of sales/auctions or allotting residential plots. The Commission held that the matter seemed to be more of a dispute between the Informant and the Opposite Party, rather than an instance of the abuse of dominant position.
Competition Commission of India
The Competition Commission of India bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Deep Anurag (Member) dismissed a complaint against Talk Charge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. with the allegation of abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market for digital payment platforms in India. The Commission held that within this market, there were several service providers, both domestic and global, indicating a competitive landscape. Further, there was a lack of evidence showing that the Informant was solely dependent on Talk Charge technologies.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Ford against the Chandigarh District Commission's order which directed it to refund or replace a defective Ford Mustang Car. The defective engine of the car led to a sudden breakdown, causing a traffic jam and injuries to the owner while pushing it. The State Commission upheld that Ford and the Dealer were liable to provide either a refund or replacement, pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- for legal costs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) allowed an appeal by Lakaki Drycleaners that they were not liable for the Complainant's damaged garments as the Complainant proceeded to pay the bill and collected the garments without raising any objections. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission, North Goa due to lack of objection on the Complainant's part and absence of proof.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Member) dismissed an appeal against the National Insurance Company Ltd. The State Commission concluded that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the insurance claim covering burglary risk by acting upon the surveyor's report as it is. The Appellant failed to provide the requisite claimed documents to the surveyor and thus the basis of valuation could not be formed.
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Axis Bank liable for deficiency in services in a housing loan case. The Complainant faced delays and hurdles in his loan process, eventually leading to the forfeiture of his earnest money. Despite the bank's assertion of property non-identification, the State Commission found the bank's lack of communication and failure to produce essential documents suspicious. They directed the bank to refund the processing fee and pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission adjudicated a dispute concerning the cancellation of the flight run by Jet Airways and booked through Make My Trip after insolvency proceedings had been initiated against Jet Airways under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission and held that the District Commission failed to take the T&C and Jet Airways' Resolution Plan into consideration. It was held that the decision of the NCLT would be final and binding upon the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) dismissed an appeal based on the complexity of the matter and the need for determination of factual intricacies. The complaint involved allegations of forgery and a dispute on the existence of the oral agreement between the concerned parties. The Complainant was set at liberty to pursue the matter with a Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr Ravishankar (Presiding Member) and Smt. Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a standard fire claim by citing the Claimant's negligence of lose wiring. The State Commission held that the root cause of the fire accident should not automatically lead to repudiation of the claim if the policy explicitly provided protection from fire accidents.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms Pinki (Member) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim for damaged marine cargo of gingers. The Insurance Company was directed to reimburse the amount along with interest. The transit companies involved in the transaction were also held negligent for damaging the cargo in transit and were directed to pay Rs. 2 Lakh compensation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner, Rajasthan
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner, Rajasthan comprising Shri Kedar Lal Gupta (Presiding Member) and Shri Sanjay Tak (Member) dismissed an appeal against LIC, filed by a policyholder who failed to disclose his pre-existing heart ailments. The State Commission held that the policyholder was not entitled to the claim as such non-disclosure resulted in the violation of the policy's terms and conditions.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) held Reliance General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services. The Insurance Company failed to honour the valid claims of the Indian travellers who received 4 bags from their luggage after a delay of more than 12 hours in Bhutan.
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.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Shri A.K. Tiwari (Presiding Member) and Dr Shrikant Pandey (Member) dismissed an appeal filed against National Insurance Company Limited by the owner of 20 insured buffaloes. The Owner failed to arrange for the post-mortem of the deceased buffaloes and instead got a 'Panchnama' (record of evidence by 5 people) signed by the co-villagers. The Panchnama was held to be insufficient to prove the claim.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala bench comprising Mr Ajith Kumar (Presiding Member) and Sri Radhakrishnan K.R. (Member) held the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) liable for deficiency in service for unilaterally cancelling the buyer agreement of the Complainant and for ignoring his legitimate requests. It was held liable to refund the balance amount and pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation.
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.
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.
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.
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) with Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), found the National Insurance Company responsible for unfair practices under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint filed by residents of Usman Colony in Baramulla claimed that the insurance company did not provide an insurance claim for their insured house after it was damaged by an earthquake. Consequently, the commission allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 6 lakhs, along with 10% interest for the house damage, as well as Rs. 50,000 for the distress caused.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to ensure the validity of the number, despite accepting payment and confirming the booking, constitutes a deficiency.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that manufacturers, retailers, and service providers must deliver quality products and services to safeguard consumer rights.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to failure to adequately investigate the unauthorized transactions from the Complainant's account and preserve crucial evidence. The bench directed the bank to refund the disputed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) directed Samsung to resolve the contentions raised by the Complainant regarding the malfunctioning of the AC within 30 days. The bench held that failure to do so will make Samsung liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar (Member) held Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for pressuring the Complainant to pay for its 5-year membership and failure to provide promised services or process the refund. The bench directed Country Inn to refund Rs. 40,440/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a completely different product to the Complainant. The Complainant ordered a pair of shoes but Myntra delivered ladies' sandals to him. The bench directed Myntra to refund ₹7611/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹2000/- along with ₹2000/- for litigation costs.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held ICICI bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to return original documents to the Complainant within 1 month of loan disbursement.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Van Heusen and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited liable of deficiency in services for charging Rs.50/- for taxes over Maximum Retail Price for the product. The bench directed them to refund Rs. 50/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 1500/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund the premium amount expeditiously when the Complainant requested cancellation of the subject policy within the free lock (the initial period in which one can cancel their insurance policy without paying for the surrender charges). The bench directed the insurance company to refund the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs.7,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Uber India liable for deficiency in services for charging ₹ 1334/- for a distance of 8.83 km. The bench directed Uber to pay an amount of ₹ 7000/- to the Complainant as compensation along with ₹ 3,000/- as litigation costs. It was also directed to deposit ₹ 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in services for repudiating the genuine claim of the Complainant who had undergone treatment for Dengue Fever. The bench directed the insurance company to reimburse the medical treatment of Rs. 31,627 /- and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held that imposing conditions like, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” on consumers, constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Department of Legal Metrology and other relevant departments were requested to conduct periodic inspections of Seller to ensure compliance.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Thomas Cook liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for refusal to refund the tour package amount, despite the Complainant's medical emergency.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President) and V. Janardhan Reddy (Member) held IRCTC liable for deficiency in services for cancelling the tickets without providing adequate reasons and informing the Complainant about one hour before the train departure.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to furnish vital information regarding the policy during signing is deemed an unfair trade practice.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that although insurance agreements are legally binding and need to be interpreted strictly, the insurers should also have a responsibility to make sure that the terms of the contract are communicated clearly and understood, especially regarding important matters like pre-existing conditions.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Samsung India and its dealer liable for deficiency in service due to their refusal to repair the product purchased by the complainant during its warranty period.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Paravoor Engineers liable for deficiency in service for selling a faulty machine and refusing to repair the product during its warranty period.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that the company's failure to fulfil its contractual duties and not removing the hypothecation on the complainant's vehicle constitutes a deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr S.K. Sardana (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank for failure to reverse a series of unauthorized transactions totalling Rs. 2,60,000/-. The Bank could not prove any negligence on the Complainant's part. Further, the Complainant informed the bank promptly within 3 days, as per the RBI guidelines.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab) bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member) held Videocon liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace the LED TV which malfunctioned within the warranty period. The bench directed Videocon to replace the LED TV or pay the sale price of Rs. 49,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi SM (Member) held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for failure to return the property documents submitted as pledge by the Complainants. The bench directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the deficiency in services.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank and Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for demanding money from the Complainant to settle the Credit Card due despite him paying Rs. 15,500/- for full and final settlement. The bench directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Axis Bank Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for arbitrable deduction of “Consolidated Charges” from the Complainant's bank account without providing adequate notice and satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the bank to refund the full amount of Rs. 40,000/- deducted from the Complainant's account and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable of deficiency in services for false repudiation of claim made by the Complainant as legal heir of her husband. The bench directed PNB to pay the claim of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held IDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services for freezing the bank account of the Complainant without providing adequate reasons. The bench directed the bank to unfreeze the Complainant's savings account and pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for reduction of a legitimate claim amount without satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the insurance company to the remaining claim of Rs. 1,67,969/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi SM (Member) held POCO liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective mobile phone with motherboard issues to the Complainant. The bench directed POCO to refund Rs. 20,999/-, representing the value of the mobile phone and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr. R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Manyavar and Paytm liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the money deducted from the Complainant's account despite showing “transaction failed”. The bench directed Manyavar and Paytm to refund Rs. 9496/- to the Complainants and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complaints along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore bench comprising Vijay Kumar. M. Pawale, B. Devaraju and V. Anuradha held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for not providing interest subsidy during the loan tenure to the Complainant. The bench directed the bank to provide the interest subsidy to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 2,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi
Unilaterally Increase Of Loan Tenure, Delhi District Commission Holds ICICI Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and UK Tyagi (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in services for unilaterally increasing the loan tenure without informing the Complainant. The bench directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Shaurya Vir Singh Pathania vs Himachal Road Transport Commission, Office at Old Bus Stand, Cart Road, Shimla, H.P and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member) held Redbus and Himachal Road Transport Commission (HRTC) liable for deficiency in services failure to inform the Complainant of the change in Bus route and failure to refund the ticket to the Complainant. The bench directed HRTC and Redbus to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant covering the ticket price and compensation for the mental agony and litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against St. Edward's School noting that education cannot be considered a commodity and education institutes providing services cannot be considered as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (Punjab) bench comprising Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Suman Khanna (Member) held Sony liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair a home theatre which was within the warranty period. The bench directed Sony to replace the home theatre with a new one and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmed (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for the delay in delivering the Complainants' luggage, six days after they arrived in New York. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 25,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by them.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Nimal Sharma (Member) and Dr. Subesingh Yadav (President) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the ACs sold to the Complainant which were within the warranty period. The bench directed LG to refund ₹ 28,950/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹ 5,000 and ₹ 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Jio Mart liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide essential details about the manufacturer, return, refund, or installation services to the Complainant when he purchased a Chimney from the website. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 13,999/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Eureka Forbes of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to inform the Complainant about the critical limitations of the water purifier. The bench directed Eureka Forbes to refund the cost of the water purifier, Rs. 10,799/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab) bench comprising Dr Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held Easy Day liable for unfair trade practices for charging Rs. 10/- for a non-woven fabric carry bag without providing prominent notice at the entrance of the store. The bench directed it to refund the Rs. 10/- charged for the carry bag and pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Sh. Narayan Thakur (Member) held Fortis Hospital and its doctor liable for medical negligence for their failure to provide standard medical services to a patient suffering from Choledocholithiasis, a liver disease. The Hospital and the concerned doctor were directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Coolcare Refrigeration, Samsung's authorized service centre liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with the fridge which persisted even after the replacement of multiple parts.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President) and Monka Bhagat (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to inform the Complainant about the discontinuation of his insurance policy from Apollo Munich Health Insurance Company Ltd. The bench directed Canara Bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
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.
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.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that If a homebuyer has given an express written undertaking stating that all their concerns have been addressed and resolved, they are not allowed to later change their mind and raise the same issues again while seeking the same type of relief through an appeal.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), Neelmani N Raju (Member), and GR Reddy (Member), rejected the homebuyers complaint of restraining the builder from constructing on the area reserved for common amenities. Accordingly, RERA held that a change in amenities location as shown in the conceptual plan (Brochure) will not make the builder liable for deviating from the sanctioned plan.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
Maharashtra RERA Grants Fourth Extension To Adhiraj Constructions To Complete Project
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), granted a one-and-a-half-year extension to Adhiraj Constructions Private Limited to complete its three towers, namely Tower 1A, 1B, and 3B, which are part of the Adhiraj Samyama project, for the fourth time. Previous three extensions were granted by MahaRERA on the grounds of COVID-19.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Orders Builders To Name Projects, Towers, And Blocks As Per Sanctioned Map
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued office order directing builders to name their housing projects, Towers, and blocks as per the sanctioned map. This directive from UPRERA came after authority observed that various builders were naming their projects differently from what was originally registered with RERA.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA)
Karnataka RERA Grants Second Extension To Varin Infra Projects To Complete Project
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) bench, comprising HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson) and Neelmani N Raju (Member), granted a 2-year extension to Varin Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd for its project Adarsh Tranqville for the second time, under Section 7(3) of the RERA 2016. In total, this is the fourth extension of the project, the other two extensions were granted by Karnataka RERA on the grounds of Covid-19 under Section 6 of RERA 2016.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority) bench, comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has directed the builder to refund the advance money paid by the homebuyer after homebuyer decided not to purchase the flat due to financial reasons.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority ) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has ordered the homebuyer to pay the remaining amount with interest to the builder for failing to adhere to the payment schedule.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer) has held that the delay in handing over the possession would be counted from the date mentioned in the agreement for sale entered into by the builder and the homebuyer prior to its registration under RERA.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer) has held that homebuyers can approach RERA for the adjudication of matter, even though the Agreement for Sale stipulates an Arbitration Clause. Accordingly, Punjab RERA directed the builder to compensate for the delayed possession.
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.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
MahaRERA Orders Deregistration Of 'Nishuvi Rehab Phase' From RERA
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench comprising of Justice Ajay Mehta (Chairperson), Mahesh Pathak (Member - I) and Ravindra Deshpande (Member - II), has ordered the deregistration of Nishuvi Rehab Phase from RERA after the builder failed to continue with the construction of the project.
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA)
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Rajeev Verma, has granted the homebuyer a full refund of their investment by rejecting the builder's contention of deducting 10% of the flat's cost as a booking charge.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
U.P. RERA Makes It Mandatory For Promoters To Prove Their Title of Project Land
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued office order directing the promoters to ensure that they have legal title over the land on which they are applying for registration of the project. In case, the project land is not in the ownership of the promoter but in the ownership of some other person or persons, the promoter must have the consent of such landowner for the development of the proposed project and must have a registered joint development agreement to this effect with the landowner. RERA has also directed the promoters to file an affidavit to the effect that the project land is free from encumbrances and to disclose the same if there is any encumbrance on the land of the project.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA or Authority)
Telangana RERA: Only The Aggrieved Party Can Approach RERA
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA or Authority) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) rejected the complaint of a person who was neither an allottee, a real estate agent, nor a landowner, holding that only the aggrieved party can approach RERA under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RJRERA)
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RJRERA) consisting of Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer) rejected the homebuyer's complaint for basement parking facility, holding that it was never part of the approved construction plan, while hearing the seven complaint matter against the builder.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
Maharashtra RERA Grants Fourth Extension To Bhumiraj Builders To Complete Project
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), granted a 4-year extension to Builder Bhumiraj Builders Pvt. Ltd for its project, which includes 4 towers namely Bhumiraj Hills Tower 1, 2, 3, & 4, for the fourth time. Previous three extensions were granted by MahaRERA on the grounds of COVID-19.
West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA)
The West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA) has issued an office order addressing the mandatory display of registration details and website addresses in advertisements and other promotional material of registered projects by builders. The order emphasizes the requirements stipulated under Section 11(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates builders to prominently display the WBRERA Registration Number and website address in all project-related advertisements and prospectuses.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA)
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) comprising of Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member) orders builder to refund the amount with interest to the complainant and holds him liable for wrongly calculating the total price of the unit based on its super built-up area instead of its carpet area.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs. Regina D'Costa
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held that rights of allottees under Section 18 to seek refund/ claim interest for delay is unconditional & absolute, regardless of unforeseen events and factors beyond control of Promotor.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)
Case: Sachin Tomar And Shivaji Tomar Vs Ensaara Metropark Luxora Infrastructure Pvt, Ltd.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that a written expressed agreement for sale is not a requirement for the allottee to avail the rights stipulated under Section 18 of the RERA. Instead, what matters more is the intention of the parties, not the nomenclature of the document.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)
Case: Sachin Tomar And Shivaji Tomar Vs Ensaara Metropark Luxora Infrastructure Pvt, Ltd.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that even if the allotment letter has been issued to allottees under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management, and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the real estate project will still be covered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) if the real estate project has been registered under RERA.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs. Regina D'Costa
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held, that provisions of the RERA, 2016, are prospective in nature and applicable to all agreements for sale executed prior to the enactment of the act, or under any previous legislation in force at that time.
Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT or Tribunal)
While setting aside the order and penalty imposed by the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA or Authority), the Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT or Tribunal) bench comprising of Justice Chander Shekhar (Chairperson), Lorren Bamniyal (Judicial Member), and Sheo Pratap Singh (Technical Member), has held that RERA, while exercising its authority against a promoter or any real estate agent through suo-motu proceedings, must inform the concerned party of the alleged violations by providing specific details in the notice.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority
UP RERA Mandates Real Estate Agents To Undergo Compulsory Training And Certification
In a significant step towards improving professionalism within the Real Estate Sector, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued an office order mandating compulsory Training and Certification Courses for real estate agents. This order applies to both newly registering real estate agents and those already registered with UPRERA, requiring them to complete the Compulsory Training and Certification within one year. Failure to comply will result in the cancellation of registration for registered agents.
Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Gujrat RERA Establishes An Internal Mechanism For Amicable Settlement Of Complaints
Gujarat RERA has released guidelines aimed at expediting the resolution of complaints under Section 31 before the authority by establishing an internal mechanism for amicable settlement. Designated officers, including Mr. P. R. Patel, Mr. D. D. Rajput, and Mr. V. C. Barot, have been appointed as Mediators. Additionally, representatives from industry bodies may be called upon if necessary.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
MahaRERA To Start Grading Real Estate Projects On Four Parameters Every Six Months From April 2024
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) plans to implement a grading system for real estate projects starting from April 2024. All projects initiated from January 2023 onwards will undergo assessment by the regulatory body as part of this initiative, which is aimed at providing information about these parameters to homebuyers to assist them in making decisions.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Issues Guidelines Outlining The Do's And Don'ts For Promoters To Adhere To When Advertising Projects. The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released guidelines in the form of do's and don'ts for promoters which they will have to mandatorily follow while advertising their projects. These guidelines aim to create widespread awareness among promoters, agents, and homebuyers.
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.
