Consumer Protection Act - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

16Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

The Supreme Court ruled that while consumer commissions can award compensation for deficiency in service, including mental harassment and litigation costs, they cannot award interest on a loan taken by the consumer in addition to the stipulated contractual interest (8% compounded annually) on the refunded amount. The Court emphasized that the awarded interest sufficiently compensates for the deprivation of investment, and awarding interest under multiple heads for the same default is unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) launched a residential scheme called 'Purab Premium Apartments' in 2011. Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar (respondents) applied for flats, with Anupam Garg paying an earnest money of ₹5,50,000 for a 2-BHK + Servant Room apar...

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the appointment process and tenure of members in State and District Consumer Commissions. It mandates judicial majority in selection committees and a five-year tenure, overturning previous rules. The Court also clarifies that written examinations are not required for judicial members, but are necessary for non-judicial members for both appointment and reappointment. Facts Of The Case: The genesis of this case lies in challenges to the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Initially, the Bombay High Court struck down certain rules concerning eligibility criteri...

Homeowner Wins 7-Year Battle: Supreme Court Orders Insurer to Pay for Rain-Flooded Basement

The Supreme Court held that heavy rainfall causing sudden basement flooding constitutes a covered "flood/inundation" peril under standard insurance policies, rejecting the insurer’s "seepage" exclusion. It ruled that insurers cannot arbitrarily disregard initial survey reports confirming flood damage in favor of belated contradictory assessments. The Court remanded the matter to NCDRC solely for compensation quantification under the policy terms, emphasizing objective claim evaluation aligned with contractual obligations. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Gopal Dikshit, owned a property at 50, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, insured under a ₹1.5 crore House Holder Policy (No. 2219042615P115431073) by United India Insurance for the period March 13, 2016, to March 12, 20...