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.

Realty firm told to pay over Rs 8L for ‘unfair trade practice’

bbA Delhi-based real estate firm has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay over Rs 8 lakh to a senior citizen for its “unfair trade practice” of taking the booking amount and not providing him with a flat.

The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed Intime Promoters Ltd to refund the booking deposit of Rs 4 lakh with 12 per cent interest, and awarded South Delhi resident Raj Kumar Baid Rs 35,000 as compensation and Rs 21,000 as litigation charges.

The forum said it appears that the promoter “collected money from various consumers whereas the project in question was neither sanctioned by competent authority nor any construction activities had started at the site till filing of the complaint…”

The forum said the “written statement or evidence does not explain avoiding the correspondence of complainant”, and neither it explains the failure to allot a final flat at the site or present status of flat.

“It clearly goes to show the malafide intention” of the developer “to grab the money which is clear case of unfair trade practice”, it observed.

“Thus, opposite party (promoter) is held guilty for deficiency and unfair trade practice to grab complainant’s money without any construction activities at site,” a bench presided by C K Chaturvedi said.

Baid had approached the forum, claiming the he had booked a flat on February 25, 2006 by paying a sum of Rs 4 lakh to Intime Promoters Ltd.

He had alleged, in his complaint, that the construction firm neither allotted the flat nor executed a buyer agreement even after he pursued the matter. They also did not respond to his demand letters, he claimed.

The firm, in a written statement, denied any deficiency on its part.

(Source: PTI)

Nokia to pay Rs 67,000 for selling defective mobile

Nokia India has been directed by a city district consumer forum to pay Rs 67,000 to one of its customers for selling him a “defective” cell phone and then failing to repair it or refund its price.

The South-II District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Nokia guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice for selling a defective phone and then failing to repair it or refund its price since September 2007 when it was first taken for repairs by Delhi resident and complainant Rohan Arora.

The forum also held retailer Luthra Communications guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice.

“When the complainant (Rohan Arora) left the defective piece of good to its manufacturer, it was incumbent upon it either to remove its defect to satisfaction of the complainant or to refund its (mobile’s) amount with interest. But opposite party 1 did not bother to resolve such genuine request of the complainant.

“Hence we hold both the opposite parties (Nokia and the retailer) guilty for gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and direct them to jointly and severally refund the amount of the handset amounting to Rs 37,000 and to further pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 for supplying a defective good and thereafter not replacing the same or to remove its defect to his satisfaction.

“They shall also pay a sum of Rs 5,000 qua the cost of the proceedings,” the bench presided by M C Mehra said.

Arora in his complaint had alleged that the phone, a Nokia E 90 Communicator bought in July 2007 for Rs 37,000, had poor incoming and outgoing audio right from the beginning.

He had returned the mobile to Nokia in September 2007 to replace it or repair the defect, he had said adding that the handset was replaced with an old instrument which also had the same problem.

He had also alleged that Nokia flatly refused to refund the cost of the phone. Nokia was proceeded against ex-parte as it had appeared only once before the forum.

Kotak Mahindra Insurance ordered to pay Rs 36K to elderly man

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd has been ordered to pay Rs 36,800 to a man for not returning the premium amount paid for a policy which he had returned within the 15-day free-look period.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pulled up the insurance firm for “cheating” customer Satish Chandra Tyagi and not returning him the premium amount despite Tyagi having returned the policy as per the stipulation that the same could be returned within free-look period of 15 days, if not liked by customer.

“Opposite party (Kotak Mahindra) has furnished long winding arguments to explain its position. We find its position totally untenable in the face of prima facie case of the complainant and evidence on record.

“Firstly, the policy was void ab-initio being issued in wrong name. Secondly, it was returned within free-look period.

“The money should have been refunded, but opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice, cheating and deficiency of service (by not returning the money). We direct it to refund Rs 11,800 and pay Rs 25,000 as damages for harassment and litigation cost,” said the bench, presided by C K Chaturvedi.

In his complaint, 60-year-old Tyagi had submitted that he and his wife were approached and offered by the insurance firm a suitable policy for them, subsequent to which his wife had purchased the policy in her name on November 20, 2005 after paying Rs 11,808 as first premium.

The policy was not issued in his wife’s name but issued in his name and it was also not a life insurance policy as was agreed upon at the time of payment of premium, he had said.

Tyagi also submitted that he was later issued a new policy, which he returned within 15 days and then had demanded refund of premium of Rs 11,808 but the firm had not returned the amount.

DLF group firm to pay Rs 7.12L for unfair trade practice

A consumer forum has held a DLF group firm guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice for taking money from a cancer patient for a flat in an unapproved residential project and has asked them to pay him Rs 7.12 lakh.

Indicting DLF Home Developers Ltd for taking money from the buyer without entering into a formal agreement, the New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ordered the company to refund him Rs 6.12 lakh, which the firm was yet to return.

The forum also awarded Rs one lakh as compensation to complainant Satish Sharma for harassment.

“We are of the view that opposite party (DLF Home Developers) indulged in unfair trade practice of collecting money without approval of plans and without formal execution of the agreement.

“We direct opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs 6,12,542 (to Sharma)…we award (the complainant) Rs one lakh for harassment damages including litigation cost,” the bench presided by C K Chaturvedi said.

Sharma had said that on August 27, 2008, he had deposited the booking amount with DLF Home Developers for a flat in its ‘The Express Greens’ project in Gurgaon. He added he had met all subsequent demands of the firm even though there was no

formal agreement and he had paid a total of Rs 14.37 lakh till January 16, 2009.

Later he came to know through newspaper reports that the project had been abandoned by the company due to financial reasons, he had said.

He added that as he was a cancer patient and the project had been abandoned, he had decided not to buy the flat and had requested that his booking be cancelled and sought refund of the amount paid by him.