National Consumer Commission 2013 Judgment on Apartment Possession

FORUM: NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CASE NUMBER: CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 242 OF 2011

TITLE: KARTAR SINGH KOCHHAR Vs VATIKA LIMITED

JUDGMENT DATE: 11.01.2013


PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS TO THE BEST OF UNDERSTANDING:

1. The consumer must first pay all due installments and registration charges to seek possession & must seek remedy (relief) only if he/she refused possession even after full payment. (Approach with clean hands)

2. No delay interest / compensation was granted as the price of flats have gone up leaps & bounds.

3. If the consumer does not pay the balance installments to get possession, the developer (builder) is at liberty to return the purchase price with 9% interest.

4. Even after receipt of the entire consideration and registration charges, the developer (builder) would put the consumer in possession of the apartment, within a week failing which, he would pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- per day.

5. The limitation will continue till the consumer gets possession

6. Even though the compensation demanded was Rs.20 lakhs, however, after considering the total amount already invested over and above the compensation demanded, the court ruled no issue with jurisdiction. (PS: For National Commission jurisdiction is 1 crore). As a matter of fact, if option of refund by developer (builder) is to be exercised / ordered, the total sum would exceed 1 crore, thereby justifying the jurisdiction.

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Extracts from Original text of judgment, reproduced below for reference & independent interpretations. Link to full judgment also provided.

RELEVANT EXTRACTS:

FAILURE TO PAY INSTALLMENTS

"The complainant himself waddled out of his commitments. He wants to have the benefit of both the worlds. He wants the delivery of possession without paying the entire amount. He has made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw. He has failed to pay the installment despite service of notice. His intention is to delay the recovery of possession on one pretext or the other. It is well said, “Time was when philosophers said that the rights and duties of the citizens were actually two-sides of same coin and you cannot demand your rights without performing your duty”. The complainant should have paid the last installment and registration charges instead of coming to this Commission. The necessity of this case being filed would have arisen when after full payment the opposite party had refused to hand over the possession."

NO INTEREST OR COMPENSATION

"Under the circumstances, no interest or compensation can be granted to the complainant because the prices of flats have gone up by leaps and bounds. He has not been asked to pay the escalation charges." 

LIBERTY TO RETURN PURCHASE PRICE WITH INTEREST 

"It is therefore ordered that the petitioner will deposit the last installment and registration charges within 90 days from today failing which the respondent will be at liberty to return the purchase price alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of that deposit till their realization and as has been agreed by the counsel for the Opposite party. After receipt of the entire consideration and registration charges, the opposite party would put the complainant in possession of the apartment, within a week failing which, he would pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- per day."

LIMITATION

"The complaint is not barred by time because the period of limitation will continue till the petitioner gets the possession."

JURISIDICTION

"Moreover, it cannot be said that this court has got no jurisdiction. The complainant has already incurred a sum of Rs.1,24,71,624/-. and has further demanded compensation in the sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The total amount comes to more than Rs.1.50 crore approximately. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case."

FULL JUDGEMENT LINK

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130220123419276CC24211.htm

Supreme Court India : Negative Voting (NOTA) Judgment

PERSONAL INTERPRETATION to the best of understanding:

1. Election Commission has been directed to provide for a NONE OF THE ABOVE (NOTA) button / option on EVMs as well as ballot papers.

2. Need of negative voting has been recognised and this might compel political parties to nominate sound candidates.

3. This would also protect elector's identity & maintain secrecy as to who casts vote & who does not case vote. In present system one can easily make out who has not voted.

4. This NOTA option is similar to the ABSTAIN option that the legislators get while voting in Parliament

5. This might also minimise giving chances to unscrupulous elements who impersonate those who dont turn up vote (dissatisfied voters) and cast a vote. 

6. IS IT REALLY RIGHT TO REJECT OR RIGHT TO RECALL? 

7. IT NOWHERE MENTIONS OR SUGGESTS FRESH ELECTION EVEN IN CASE OF NOTA BEING MAJORITY. IT ONLY TALKS ABOUT SYSTEMIC CHANGES SENDING SIGNALS TO PARTIES TO FIELD SOUND CANDIDATES

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Extracts from Original text of judgment, reproduced below for reference & independent interpretations. Link to full judgment also provided.

______________________________________________________________

CASE NO.: 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 161 OF 2004

CASE TITLE: 
People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. VERSUS Union of India & Anr. 

BENCH:
CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM) 
J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI) 
J. (RANJAN GOGOI)


IMPORTANT EXTRACTS FROM JUDGMENT:

"Democracy being the basic feature of our constitutional set up, there can be no two opinions that free and fair elections would alone guarantee the growth of a healthy democracy in the country. The ‘Fair’ denotes equal opportunity to all people. Universal adult suffrage conferred on the citizens of India by the Constitution has made it possible for these millions of individual voters to go to the polls and thus participate in the governance of our country. For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values, who win the elections on a positive vote. Thus in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate. This situation palpably tells us the dire need of negative voting"

"No doubt, the right to vote is a statutory right but it is equally vital to recollect that this statutory right is the essence of democracy. Without this, democracy will fail to thrive. Therefore, even if the right to vote is statutory, the significance attached with the right is massive. Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind these facets while deciding the issue at hand."

"Democracy is all about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalize themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such a choice. By providing NOTA button in the EVMs, it will accelerate the effective political participation in the present state of democratic system and the voters in fact will be empowered. We are of the considered view that in bringing out this right to cast negative vote at a time when electioneering is in full swing, it will foster the purity of the electoral process and also fulfill one of its objective, namely, wide participation of people."

"Free and fair election is a basic structure of the Constitution and necessarily includes within its ambit the right of an elector to cast his vote without fear of reprisal, duress or coercion. Protection of elector’s identity and affording secrecy is therefore integral to free and fair elections and an arbitrary distinction between the voter who casts his vote and the voter who does not cast his vote is violative of Article 14. Thus, secrecy is required to be maintained for both categories of persons."

"...The voting machines in the Parliament have three buttons, namely, AYES, NOES, and ABSTAIN. Therefore, it can be seen that an option has been given to the members to press the ABSTAIN button. Similarly, the NOTA button being sought for by the petitioners is exactly similar to the ABSTAIN button since by pressing the NOTA button the voter is in effect saying that he is abstaining from voting since he does not find any of the candidates to be worthy of his vote."

"The mechanism of negative voting, thus, serves a very fundamental and essential part of a vibrant democracy...."

"...Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Rules are ultra vires Section 128 of the RP Act and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting...."

"Giving right to a voter not to vote for any candidate while protecting his right of secrecy is extremely important in a democracy. Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by the political parties. When the political parties will realize that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity."

"The direction can also be supported by the fact that in the existing system a dissatisfied voter ordinarily does not turn up for voting which in turn provides a chance to unscrupulous elements to impersonate the dissatisfied voter and cast a vote, be it a negative one. Furthermore, a provision of negative voting would be in the interest of promoting democracy as it would send clear signals to political parties and their candidates as to what the electorate think about them."

"We direct the Election Commission to provide necessary provision in the ballot papers/EVMs and another button called “None of the Above” (NOTA) may be provided in EVMs so that the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray, are able to exercise their right not to vote while maintaining their right of secrecy. In as much as the Election Commission itself is in favour of the provision for NOTA in EVMs, we direct the Election Commission to implement the same either in a phased manner or at a time with the assistance of the Government of India. We also direct the Government of India to provide necessary help for implementation of the above direction. Besides, we also direct the Election Commission to undertake awareness programmes to educate the masses."

COMPLETE JUDGMENT AT :

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wp(c)No.161of2004.pdf

Supreme Court Judgement on Aadhar Card

September 23, Supreme Court, New Delhi.


Supreme Court Order / Judgement on Aadhar (Adhaar) 

There was a lot of media buzz over an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on "Aadhar - UID". Various section of media & political parties even raised feasibility of the whole "Aadhar" program with reference to the order.  But have they actually gone through the judgement?

Headnote from the order:

"no person should suffer for  not  getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had  issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies  to  get the Adhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to  any illegal immigrant."

Personal interpretation to the best of understanding:

1. Aadhar / Adhaar Card should be considered voluntary & not mandatory

2. None should suffer or be denied of a service for not getting Aadhar / Adhaar card.

3. Aadhar / Adhaar Card should be given only to those who are legally entitled & not to any illegal immigrant.

4. The order does not make any direct / indirect reference to DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer) Scheme.

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Please see the original text of judgement, reproduced below for reference & for your independent interpretation.

___________________________________________________________________

ITEM NO.5+56               Court No.5             SECTION PIL


            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 494 OF 2012


JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD)& ANR                 Petitioner(s)


                 VERSUS


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             Respondent(s)


(With appln(s) for stay)


WITH T.P.(C) NO. 47-48 of 2013
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)
(Appln. for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 1)


T.P.(C) NO. 476 of 2013
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)


W.P.(C) No. 829 of 2013
(With appln(s) for interim relief and office report)


Date: 23/09/2013  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE


For Petitioner(s)        Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Adv.
                         Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv.
                         Mr. Ranvir Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Adv.
                         Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta,Adv.
                         Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Adv.
                         Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
                         Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.


                         Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv.
                         Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv.


                         Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
                         Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
                         Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv.
                         Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv.
                 for     M/s. K.J. John & Co.


For Respondent(s)        Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG
                         Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG
                         Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Adv.
                         Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.
                         Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv








                                 -2-


           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R




                Issue notice in W.P.(C) No. 829/2013.


                Application for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 1 in T.P.(C) Nos. 47 of 2013 is allowed.


                T.P.(C)nos. 47-48 of 2013 and T.P.(C) No. 476 of  2013  are allowed in terms of the signed order.


                All the matters require to  be  heard  finally.   List  all matters for final hearing after the Constitution Bench is over.


                In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for  not  getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies  to get the Adhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that  person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant.






        |   (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI)             |(M.S. NEGI)                  |
|  Court Master                     |      Court Master           |


                 (Signed order is placed on the file)





                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

              TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 47-48 OF 2013

THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.            ....Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

S. RAJU & ANR. ETC.                               ....Respondent(s)

                                 WITH

              TRANSFER PETITION(CIVIL) NO(s). 476 OF 2013


                                 O R D E R


                 Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of  the  case,we are satisfied that this is a fit case where the prayer for transfer is to be allowed.


                 On the facts of the case, we allow these Transfer Petitions and direct that W.P(C) No. 439 of 2012 titled S.  Raju  Vs.  Govt.  of India and Others  pending  before  the  D.B.  of  the  High  Court  of Judicature at Madras and PIL No. 10 of 2012 titled Vickram Crishna and Others  Vs.  UIDAI  and  Others  pending  before  the  High  Court  of Judicature at Bombay be transferred to this Court.   The  Registry  of the High Court of Madras and Registry of the High Court of Bombay  are requested  to  transmit   the   original   records   to   this   Court expeditiously.


                 These Transfer Petitions are accordingly allowed.

                                                      ....................J.
                                                

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)




                                                      ....................J.
                                                                (S.A. BOBDE)

      NEW DELHI;
      SEPTEMBER 23, 2013.