Page 3 - Consumer Protection

Insurer can refuse a claim if intimation is not given promptly

The Commission considered the statements of the warehouse supervisor and the security guard recorded when the Corporation investigated how the loss

Builder faces imprisonment for defying consumer court order

Showing leniency to those who obey orders of consumer fora would send a wrong signal

Bank liable for negligence in cheating case

If a company parks surplus money for a short time, it can be considered as a consumer

Relief for purchaser in auction

When a case is delayed, even favourable order and compensation cannot make up for the losses suffered

Unfair trade practices by real estate firms

Naren and Sudha Sheth booked a residential flat in a housing-cum-commercial project known as Lodha Luzuria at Thane, being constructed by Sri Sainath Enterprises, belonging to the Lodha Group. The price of the flat, measuring 1,118 square feet carpet area on the second floor, was Rs 1.04 crore.Out of the agreed consideration, Seths paid Rs 1.02 crore in instalments from September 27, 2010, to November 2, 2010. The remaining amount of Rs 2.6 lakh was to be paid at the time of possession. To pay for the purchase of this flat, Seths had to break their fixed deposits, losing Rs 3 lakh towards interest and other charges.The builder avoided executing the agreement for sale. No heed was paid to the correspondence made by the Seths in this regard. On December 22, 2010, the builder demanded an additional sum of Rs 3.96 lakh for car parking. The Seths questioned this demand. Since no heed was paid to their e-mail, they had a legal notice issued. In response, the builder's representative informed

Compensation for frivolous appeals

Ramachandran had booked a duplex apartment in a building to be constructed by Atul Realty at Belapur in Navi Mumbai. The total cost was Rs 13.06 lakh payable in instalments.Ramachandran paid in instalment. The total amount paid till March 12, 1996, was Rs 12.08 lakh. On December 12, 1997, the builder said his booking would be shifted to some other project. Ramachandran objected to this. The builder promised to refund the amount with interest at 24 per cent a year, in case the project was abandoned for any reason.Since the builder defaulted, and neither gave possession or refunded the money, Ramachandran filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission against Atul Realty and its directors, Atul and Rakesh Agarwal. He claimed a refund of Rs 12.08 lakh along with interest at 24 per cent a year and Rs 2 lakh as damages for severe hardship caused to him.Atul Realty contested and explained the building could not be constructed as the plot on which it was to be built was allotted by

Insurer should reimburse a stock exchange for broker defaults

Trade Guarantee Fund can be used for meeting commitments, obligations and liabilities to clearing house

Original builder responsible for completion of housing project

Builder can't escape liability by merely assigning development rights to another developer

Bank liable for lost title deeds

The loss of important documents constitutes negligence, entitling consumers to make a claim for deficiency in service. Even though certified copies are valid, consumers should be compensated