Latest news with #ConsumerCommission
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Complainant cannot move RERA, consumer court at same time: WBREAT
KOLKATA : The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) ruled in a case that a complainant cannot simultaneously approach the real estate regulatory authority and the consumer court. "Since the cause of action in the proceedings before a Consumer Commission is identical with that of the Regulatory Authority, the complainant has to elect either of the two proceedings and cannot proceed with both simultaneously," WBREAT chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and administrative member Dr Subrat Mukherjee ruled. The ruling was based on consideration of various provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and decisions of the Supreme Court. While dismissing the complainants' appeal on this technical ground, the Tribunal gave liberty to the complainants to withdraw the complaint from the Consumer Commission and file it afresh before the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority ( WBRERA ). The case relates to a dispute between landowners Debdutta and Siddharta Chatterjee and developer MS Enterprise over the development of a ground plus four-storied building. As per the development agreement, three flats measuring 2,100 sq ft in total were to be allocated to the Chatterjees within 24 months of Sept 16, 2020. When the developer failed to hand over possession on time, the Chatterjees initially filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, seeking direction upon the promoter to hand over the flats to them and to pay compensation. It was also alleged in the complaint that the promoter constructed an additional floor illegally and sought relief for deviating from the sanctioned plan by the promoter. While the complaint case was pending in the Consumer Commission, the complainants filed a complaint at WBRERA seeking the same remedies as sought in the complaint before the consumer court. By an interim order dated Jan 7, 2025, WBRERA directed the promoter to deliver possession of three flats to the complainants. By the same order, the Regulatory Authority summarily rejected the application filed by the promoter challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the cause of action and the remedies as in the complaint before the Consumer Commission are identical. Following the appeal before the Appellate Authority by the promoter, WBREAT ruled in favour of the developer by stating that the petition of the Chatterjees before WBRERA was not maintainable as they also sought redressal on the same grounds before the District Consumer Redressal Commission.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
You cannot move RERA, consumer court at same time: Realty tribunal
1 2 Kolkata: The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) ruled in a case that a complainant cannot simultaneously approach the real estate regulatory authority and the consumer court. "Since the cause of action in the proceedings before a Consumer Commission is identical with that of the Regulatory Authority, the complainant has to elect either of the two proceedings and cannot proceed with both simultaneously," WBREAT chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and administrative member Dr Subrat Mukherjee ruled. The ruling was based on consideration of various provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and decisions of the Supreme Court. While dismissing the complainants' appeal on this technical ground, the Tribunal gave liberty to the complainants to withdraw the complaint from the Consumer Commission and file it afresh before the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA). The case relates to a dispute between landowners Debdutta and Siddharta Chatterjee and developer MS Enterprise over the development of a ground plus four-storied building. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Rugas no pescoço? Esse truque caseiro pode ajudar (Tente isso hoje à noite) Revista & Saúde Saiba Mais Undo As per the development agreement, three flats measuring 2,100 sq ft in total were to be allocated to the Chatterjees within 24 months of Sept 16, 2020. When the developer failed to hand over possession on time, the Chatterjees initially filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, seeking direction upon the promoter to hand over the flats to them and to pay compensation. It was also alleged in the complaint that the promoter constructed an additional floor illegally and sought relief for deviating from the sanctioned plan by the promoter. While the complaint case was pending in the Consumer Commission, the complainants filed a complaint at WBRERA seeking the same remedies as sought in the complaint before the consumer court. By an interim order dated Jan 7, 2025, WBRERA directed the promoter to deliver possession of three flats to the complainants. By the same order, the Regulatory Authority summarily rejected the application filed by the promoter challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the cause of action and the remedies as in the complaint before the Consumer Commission are identical. Following the appeal before the Appellate Authority by the promoter, WBREAT ruled in favour of the developer by stating that the petition of the Chatterjees before WBRERA was not maintainable as they also sought redressal on the same grounds before the District Consumer Redressal Commission.
The Hindu
09-05-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Consumer commission orders nursery to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to farmer after banana plants didn't bear fruit
In a quiet corner of Kerala, a farmer's hopes for a bountiful banana harvest withered — not from drought or disease, but from a promise unfulfilled. Now, a local consumer court has stepped in, ordering a nursery to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation after the banana plants it supplied failed to bear fruit as expected. The complaint was filed by a farmer from Karimpanthottiyil, Wandoor, in this district, who had taken land on lease for farming. He bought 150 banana saplings, including the 'Nendran' variety, from Chungathara Krishi Nursery, paying ₹3,425. He was told the plants would bear fruit within 10 months, in time to sell during the Onam season. However, the plants did not bear fruit on time. Worse, instead of the 'Nendran' variety, he received a different type called 'Swarnamukhi'. Other saplings he received were also not the ones he ordered. The farmer filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission, asking for ₹1.64 lakh in compensation. The local agriculture officer and an advocate commissioner visited the farm and submitted reports that supported the farmer's claims. Based on these reports, the Malappuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the nursery to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation. In addition, they must return ₹3,425 for the cost of the saplings, ₹11,175 spent on fertilisers, and ₹10,000 for legal costs. The Commission, led by President K. Mohandas and members Preethi Sivaraman and C.V. Muhammed Ismail, also stated that if the payment is not made within a month, 9% interest will be added. The order was issued against Chungathara Krishi Nursery and Garden Service.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
09-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Consumer court awards ₹1 L for farmer as banana plants fail to bear fruit
The local agriculture officer and an advocate commissioner visited the farm and submitted reports that supported the farmer's claims Press Trust of India Malappuram (Kerala) In a quiet corner of Kerala, a farmer's hopes for a bountiful banana harvest witherednot from drought or disease, but from a promise unfulfilled. Now, a local consumer court has stepped in, ordering a nursery to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation after the banana plants it supplied failed to bear fruit as expected. The complaint was filed by a farmer from Karimpanthottiyil, Wandoor, in this district, who had taken land on lease for farming. He bought 150 banana saplings, including the 'Nendran' variety, from Chungathara Krishi Nursery, paying Rs 3,425. He was told the plants would bear fruit within 10 months, in time to sell during the Onam season. However, the plants did not bear fruit on time. Worse, instead of the 'Nendran' variety, he received a different type called 'Swarnamukhi'. Other saplings he received were also not the ones he ordered. The farmer filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission, asking for Rs 1.64 lakh in compensation. The local agriculture officer and an advocate commissioner visited the farm and submitted reports that supported the farmer's claims. Based on these reports, the Malappuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the nursery to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation. In addition, they must return Rs 3,425 for the cost of the saplings, Rs 11,175 spent on fertilisers, and Rs 10,000 for legal costs. The Commission, led by President K Mohandas and members Preethi Sivaraman and C V Muhammed Ismail, also stated that if the payment is not made within a month, 9 per cent interest will be added. The order was issued against Chungathara Krishi Nursery and Garden Service. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
