Dec.18: SETTLED IN COURT
- Posted by CERC India
- Posted in DCMBR
Area under walls not included in carpet area
The Ghaste family bought a ready flat in Mumbai for Rs. 25 lakh with carpet area of 760 sq ft. On taking possession, they found the flat was smaller than expected. Shailendra Ghaste took up the matter with the builder – Dialani Developers. As the grievance was not redressed, a case was filed before the Maharashtra State Commission against the builder and the estate agent.
The builder claimed there had been a lapse, and 760 sq ft actually referred to built-up area. The State Commission ruled that the builder could not be faulted for mentioning the built-up area as the agreement was made before the rule came that carpet area should be mentioned. Moreover, the builder had not suppressed any information as the floor plan had been annexed to the agreement.
The Ghastes approached the National Commission which asked the builder to measure the carpet area again. It was found that the area under the walls had been included which is not permissible. As a result, the actual carpet area was only 713.39 sq ft. The Commission held the builder liable for this deficiency and not the estate agent.
The Commission ordered the builder to refund the value of the deficient carpet area amounting to Rs. 1,53,388 and stamp duty paid on that area which came to Rs. 7,669. Both these amounts would also carry 9% interest from the date of the complaint till refund.
Point of law
A builder can be held liable for manipulation in carpet area.
[Source: The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 24 July 2018 on First Appeal no. 102 of 2008]
Did You Know
According to a recent High Court order, no private school can charge any fee (including transport fees) for the holiday months (April/May to June/July) after the final exams.If any school charges such fees, parents should complain to the police. Action would be taken against the school and it may lose its licence.
Amazon India ordered to delist sellers of fakes
Global lifestyle brand Beverely Hills Polo Club came to know of widespread sale of counterfeit products carrying its brand name on Amazon. The products included apparel, accessories, watches, belts and fragrance products. The company said it offered for sale only fragrance products on online platforms.
It issued a notice to Amazon telling the e-commerce giant to delete the URLs advertising and selling the counterfeit products using Beverelyâ€™s trademark. It also asked Amazon to disclose the name and contact details of the suppliers of the products. Amazon did delete the URLs but declined to give details of the suppliers.
Beverely pointed out that when one of the URLs was removed a fresh link sprung up on the website and the sale of counterfeit products was continuing. Accordingly, it filed a case against Amazon Seller Services, which runs Amazon.in.
The High Court, in its order, said: â€œThe defendant shall remove forthwith from its platform any URLs which are pointed out by the plaintiff, which are selling products in violation of the plaintiffâ€™s right.â€ The court also ordered Amazon to give details of the suppliers who have uploaded the URLs.
Point of law
An e-commerce marketplace has to disclose the details of the sellers of counterfeit products.
Â [Source: The order of the High Court, New Delhi dated 16 July 2018 on CS (COMM) 1015/2018]