Real estate firm to pay over Rs 6 L for cheating consumer

A real estate firm has been asked by a consumer forum here to pay over Rs 6 lakh to a man for “cheating” him and indulging in “unfair trade practice” by not allotting him a plot after getting payment.

New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked U-turn Housing Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 6.25 lakh to Anil Kakar, who had approached the forum alleging deficiency on the firm’s part in respect of non-delivery of the plot.

“We hold OP (firm) guilty of deficiency in service and cheating and unfair trade practice, we direct OP to return the sum of Rs 5.25 lakh…And award compensation of Rs 1 lakh,” the forum said.

While passing an ex-parte order, the forum noted that firm preferred to remain silent after getting copy of complaint.

Kakar, in his complaint, told the forum that he had booked a plot with the firm in its proposed venture in Jaipur in 2006 and paid Rs 5.25 lakh for the same.

However, the firm never issued him any allotment letter and he later came to know that it had collected money on false advertisement and assurances and there were no plots for sale, the complaint said. Aggrieved by this, he had approached the forum.

DLF told to pay around Rs 1.5L for wrongly deducting brokerage

DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Pvt Ltd has been asked by a consumer forum here to pay around Rs 1.5 lakh to a man, who booked a property in its project, for “wrongly deducting brokerage”.

New
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, presided over by C K Chaturvedi, asked the firm to pay Rs 1,49,783 to Noida resident Rajesh Kukreja.

It also said that the firm “unjustly enriched” itself by “deducting brokerage”.

“We hold OP (firm) guilty of deficiency in unlawful trade practices and direct the OP to… Refund Rs 1,49,783 wrongly deducted as brokerage,” the forum said.

Kukreja had told the forum that he had booked the property in firm’s residential project in Gurgaon by paying Rs 26.82 lakh in 2008.

Later, when he discovered that there was no progress in construction at all due to the lack of environmental clearance, he approached the firm which gave him an exit option.

The reality firm, however, refunded him only Rs 25.32 lakh by deducting Rs 1,49,783 as brokerage cost.

 

Firm asked to pay around Rs 20 lakh for unfair trade practice

A consumer forum has directed a Delhi-based construction firm to pay around Rs 20 lakh to a man for not delivering him a plot, saying the company engaged in “unfair trade practice”.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd to pay Rs 19.5 lakh to one Nirmal Singh and held that the evidence filed by the firm was false and fabricated.

“… It appears that the opposite party (firm) acted as collection agent to collect the money from various consumers without any approval or construction activities or development at site which act clearly falls under… Unfair trade practice, which deliberately pretended to sell plot through provisional allotment printed performas and misled the consumer as well as forum too,” the forum’s bench, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said.

The forum also said it was very much transparent from the activities of the firm and its officials that they adopted the delaying tactics for not delivering the plot to Singh, despite several requests and correspondence exchanged between them, but all efforts were in vain.

“OP is directed to refund Rs 17 lakh… And we also award Rs two lakh as compensation for harassment and Rs 50,000 as litigation charges,” it said.

Singh had told the forum that he had booked a commercial space at Mohali in Punjab in provisional allotment with the firm in 2008 and had paid Rs 17 lakh for 204 sq. Yd. And was supposed to get the possession within 12 months.

The company did not develop the proposed site and on April 6, 2010, Singh received a letter regarding allotment of a plot, whose size was reduced from the size promised in the application.

Further, the firm also raised a financial demand for allotment of the plot. Aggrieved by this, Singh filed the complaint before the forum.

The firm, however, had denied the allegation made against it.

National Insurance Company Ltd asked to pay around Rs 11 lakh to man

A consumer forum here has directed National Insurance Company Ltd to a man for loss of jewellery in a theft and expressed “shock” over the firm’s ignorance of facts.

The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the firm to pay Rs 10,75,934 to Delhi resident Atam Prakash Sood, and said it “committed deficiency in service”. The amount included a compensation of Rs 70,000.
“Opposite Party (insurance firm) has attempted to invent ground to deny as if the complainant invited the burglars in the house and collaborated with them to get the valuables stolen by theft.

“We are shocked at its ignoring the facts recorded by its own surveyor and Opposite Party agreeing with the opinion of surveyor on the conclusion which is beyond the brief of surveyor,” the forum said.
The bench, also comprising members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, noted that the record of FIR by police and other facts were self explanatory on the aspect of burglary in the house.

“The liability of Opposite Party is absolute in this case of loss of jewellery by misfortune,” it said.

The forum said that the firm had totally misdirected itself and has declined with mala fide intention the claim for loss of jewellery declared by the man at the time of taking insurance cover.
“The Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service. We held it liable for deficiency and liable for compensation to complainant to the extent of value of jewellery declared of Rs 10,05,934… and pay for compensation for the harassment, deficiency, litigation and mental agony, which place at Rs 70,000 in this case,” it added.

Sood had told the forum that on the intervening night of May 19-20, 2010, some persons robbed jewellery from his house. He had taken ‘All Risk Household Cover Policy’ issued by the insurance firm and informed it about the theft.

However, the claim was repudiated by the firm and, thereafter, he filed the complaint with the forum, alleging deficiency on its part.

The firm, however, contended before the forum that there was no offence of burglary in law and raised question that why guard of the house could not prevent the burglary, adding that there was violation of policy condition as complainant failed to take care of the valuables.

LIC asked to pay for denying claim arbitrarily

A consumer forum has directed the Life Insurance Corporation to pay  Rs one lakh to the husband of a policy holder for ‘arbitrarily’ rejecting his claim for the assured amount on his wife’s death.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed that LIC had ‘misdirected itself’ by not showing any evidence that the deceased was suffering from asthma prior to availing the policy and had not ‘applied its mind’ while denying his claim. The LIC had denied the claim saying the woman was an asthma patient and had not disclosed her illness while taking the policy.

It had relied on a discharge summary of 2004 to reject the claim.

“We have considered the material on record and submission made. It is patent that opposite party (LIC) has misdirected itself. It has not brought any evidence of deceased suffering from asthma before taking of policy in 2003 or any record of taking treatment.

“The discharge summary of 2004 is of no use. It shows trouble for 4-5 days in 2004 and not before taking policy in 2003. Opposite party has not applied its mind. We hold it guilty of deficiency in service by arbitrarily repudiating the claim,” according to the bench presided by C.K. Chaturvedi.

It directed LIC to pay the sum insured of Rs 50,000 along with ‘punitive damages’ of Rs 50,000 to Delhi resident Dev Raj whose wife had died in December 2005. The forum also directed LIC to obtain half of the damages from salary of the officer concerned ‘who gave no attention to the appeal and agreed for repudiating the claim’.

Raj, in his complaint, had said that his wife had obtained the policy for Rs 50,000 from LIC in 2003 and under it she was covered till 2005, but the insurance firm had rejected his claim on the ground that she was an asthma patient.