Ten important cases 2023

Case 4

·         Case Title: Naresh Garg and Sons vs CHD Developers Ltd. (NC)

·         CC No. 1753 of 2018,

·         Decided on 23^rd March 2023

Issue: Can the builder benefit from their own wrongdoing, particularly in cases of delayed possession?

Facts:

The flat in question was initially assigned to Sh. Sarvesh Kumar. Mr. Naresh Garg subsequently applied to CHD Developers, the Opposite Party, for the re-allotment of a unit near the Golf Course Avenue in Gurgaon. The re-allotment was approved, and all requisite formalities were completed, including the payment of charges. However, despite the agreement stipulating that possession of the unit should be handed over by the Opposite Party within 42 months, they failed to meet this timeframe.

Arguments extended by Opposite Party:

·         That the delay was caused due to a notification by the National Green Tribunal, Delhi resulting into stopping all construction activities by OP for a few months.

·         That the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for the reason the property was purchased for investment and re-sale and falls under Commercial purpose 

·         That the Complainant’s claim is inflated to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of NCDRC.

 

National Commission Held

 

In addressing the aforementioned case, the National Commission dismissed the Developers' argument claiming that the delay was a result of guidelines issued by the National Green Tribunal to halt construction. The bench commented that the Opposite Party cannot capitalize on their failure to adhere to the rules of the green tribunal and then use it as a justification for construction delays; this cannot be deemed as force majeure.

 

SC Judgment

·         There was no blanket order of the NGT to stop construction activities. The direction to stop construction activities was only where the construction was being carried out in violation of the MOEF Guidelines 2010.

“Builders are to bear for the consequences for the delays caused due to their own mismanagements and if any order by any courts are passed subsequently, that cannot be treated as force majeure conditions.”

·         The contention of the Opposite Party that Mr. Naresh is not a consumer was rejected as no evidence was produced to corroborate the same.

 

 Case 5

·         Case Title - Kamukayi & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. (SC)

·         Civil Appeal No. 3799 OF 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) NO. 17062/2022)

·         Decided on 16^th May 2023

Issue: Does the lack of a ticket lead to the rejection of a bona fide passenger's claim under the Railways Act, 1989, when defining an 'untoward incident'?

 

 

Facts:

·         In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2442/2019, the Madras High Court held that the appellant had not succeeded in proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Additionally, the appellant failed to establish the occurrence of any 'untoward incident' or that the death of the deceased resulted from such an incident. 

·         The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, rejected the claim petition filed for compensation related to the death of Muchamy, also known as Muthusamy. 

Appeals Before Supreme Court

 Legal position

·         Under Section 123(c), Clause (2) of the relevant legal provision, an "untoward incident" includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train that is designed to carry passengers.

·         According to Section 124A, the Railway Administration is obligated to provide compensation in the event of an untoward incident during the operation of the railway. Whether or not there is any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the Railway Administration, a passenger who has suffered injury or death during such an incident is entitled to receive compensation. The Railway is required to pay compensation as specified for the particular untoward incident.

·         By the explanation of the said section clarifying about ‘passenger’, it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

 

SC Held

 

·         Nevertheless, the mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased individual does not automatically negate the claim that they were a bona fide passenger. The initial burden of proof lies with the claimant, which can be fulfilled by submitting an affidavit outlining the pertinent facts. Subsequently, the burden shifts to the Railways, and the matter can be adjudicated based on the presented facts or the surrounding circumstances.

·         Whenever any untoward incident happens occurs in the course of working of the railway, the Railway Administration is liable to compensate the passenger irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration.

 

Referred Cases:

·         Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari vs Union of India

·         Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh vs Union of India

·         Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs Union of India

·         Supreme Court in Kamrunnissa vs Union of India

           

Case 6

·         Case Title: K C Ninan vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. (SC)

·         Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 with many others

·         Decided on 19^th May 2023

Issue:

·         Whether the arrears of unpaid electricity dues outstanding from the erstwhile owner can be claimed from the subsequent owner.

·         The implication of the expression “as is where is” basis while getting transfer of any property.

Facts:

·         The supply of electricity was discontinued due to the failure of the previous owners to pay the dues for consumption of electricity on the premises.

·         The previous owners underwent liquidation, leading to the auction sale of the premises typically on an “as is where is” basis. Subsequently, the new owners, who acquired the properties through auction, sought new electricity connections for the premises where electricity had previously been disconnected due to non-payment of dues.

 

Observations by Court

1.      A statute mandating the new property owner to settle the previous owner's electricity debts before accessing electricity services will possess a statutory nature. Therefore, the retrieval of electricity arrears from a new owner aligns reasonably with the objectives outlined in the 2003 Act.

2.      The phrase “as is where is” signifies that every prospective bidder is alerted to the fact that the seller disclaims any responsibility concerning the property being auctioned, including any aspect thereof.

 

SC Held -

In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers. (SC gave relief to the consumer under special circumstances of the case)

 

Previous

Next