S.M.KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
Amrita Rosha Jain – Appellant
Versus
Bhavendra Kumar – Respondent
The instant matter relates to 3 f. a. s filed by the appellant – one director of the builder co. under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commission’s Orders (3 nos.) dated 21.03.2017, 23.02.2017 and 02.03.2017 whereby the State Commission directed the opposite parties – three directors of the builder co. to refund the deposited amount (Rs.24,00,000/-; Rs. 25,00,000/-; Rs. 25,00,000/-) to the respondents – complainants; with interest (@ 12% p.a.; @ 12% p.a.; @ 12% p.a.) from the respective dates of deposit till realization; compensation (Rs.2,00,000/-; Rs.2,00,000/-; Rs.2,00,000/-); and litigation expenses (Rs.20,000/-; Rs.20,000/-; Rs.25,000/-).
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant – director of the builder co. and perused the material on record.
3. First appeals no. 2273 of 2017, 2274 of 2017 and 2275 of 2017 have arisen from consumer complaints no. 155 of 2015, 287 of 2015 and 314 of 2015 before the State Commission. In the said c.c.s (3 nos.), the parties were:—
Bhavendra Kumar
– Complainant in C.C. No. 155 of 2015
M
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.