The apex consumer panel has asked real estate major Parsvnath Developers Ltd to pay over Rs 42 lakh to a buyer for failing to hand over a flat in Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh, booked around ten years ago.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also directed the firm to pay an interest of 18 per cent per annum from the date of each payment till the full amount is refunded.
A bench presided by Justice V K Jain asked the builder to pay Rs 42.37 lakh to Delhi resident Aditya Laroia, along with interest, after the complainant rejected the firm’s offer that the flat would be handed over by the end of this year, saying “the complainant, in our view, is justified in refusing to accept offer made by the opposite party (firm).”
“The complaint is disposed of with a direction to opposite party to refund the entire amount received by it (Rs 42.37 lakh) from the complainant (Laroia) along with compensation to him in the form of simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the said refund along with compensation in form of interest is paid,” the commission said.
According to the complaint, Laroia had booked the flat in firm’s project Parsvnath Privilege in Greater Noida in May 2006 and the possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the flat.
However, Laroia claimed that the construction of the flat was not yet complete and, thereafter approached commission seeking Rs 1,23,11,998, including interest.
The firm submitted before the commission that it will be in a position to deliver the possession of the flat by the end of December 2016, which was rejected by complainant.
Doctor’s rash or negligent act resulting in death amounts to an accident apex consumer panel has held while making the victim entitled to the accidental death benefits from his or her insurer.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (NCDRC) gave the ruling while ordering the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India to pay the accidental death benefits to the husband of the insured, who had died while being operated upon.
“The life assured (the insured) died during an operation by the treating doctors. Thus, the injury to the life assured was an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the accidental benefits to the complainant,” the NCDRC said.
The LIC had denied the accidental benefits to Haryana resident Narender Singh, the husband of the insured, saying his wife’s death during the surgery was not an accident.
It had also contended that the doctors were not negligent or rash as they had performed the surgery fairly without any ill-intention or mens rea.
The bench presided by Justice J M Malik rejected the contentions as “devoid of force” and pointed out that “a criminal case under section 304-A (of Indian Penal Code) is pending against the doctors. A criminal case crops up by a negligent and rash act. Mens rea is not required.”It also observed “the negligence and rashness” as well as deficiency of service of the doctors was evident from the fact that no anaesthetist was present during the surgery.
“Without calling the anaesthetist, the doctors should not have treated the patient at all. This itself speaks deficiency in service on the part of the doctors as well as negligence and rashness,” the NCDRC said