Consumer can't be made to suffer for firm's inter se disputes: Commission
In a unique judgment, the state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has held that the consumer cannot be made to suffer on account of alleged disputes between directors of a company and their inter se claims.chandigarh Updated: Jan 28, 2015 21:04 IST
In a unique judgment, the state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has held that the consumer cannot be made to suffer on account of alleged disputes between directors of a company and their inter se claims.
Coming down heavily on the developer for delay in getting a villa transferred, the commission directed Premium Acre Infratech Private Limited to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to Neetika Deol, resident of Sector 9, Chandigarh, for deficient services.
Apart from paying compensation, the developer has been directed to execute the sale/conveyance deed and get it registered in Deol's name along with paying Rs 7,000 per month for delay in delivery of possession from November 2013 to January 2015. The developer would also pay Rs 20,000 as cost of litigation.
Deol said she had bought a villa for `43 lakh and deposited the final dues as demanded by the company, but the property was not ready for possession.
She alleged that later, there was some dispute between the directors of the company in August 2013 and they tried to extract more money and started issuing notices with false demands. Deol alleged that the new director even increased cost of the apartment in contravention of the allotment letter.
Denying any deficiency in services, Premium Acre Infratech Private Limited said Deol was given enough opportunities for taking possession of the villa, but she failed to do so.
They claimed that Deol had to bear charges on account of inflation and submitted that the former director in connivance of various customers, including Deol, had embezzled huge amount of the company and had done fraud with them, and as such, a criminal case against him and employees, including the complainant, was lodged.
Unimpressed, the consumer commission on January 13, held that in case the former director of the company had embezzled the amount belonging to the company, the consumers were not liable to suffer on that account.