SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
Dilip Sagun Naik – Appellant
Versus
Maliyil Cheriyan Mathai – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Joshi, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The instant Appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 03.02.2020, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”), wherein the complaint was partly allowed and the Appellant was directed to execute the sale deed, pay to Respondent a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs to the Respondent.

2. For the convenience, the Parties would be referred to the positions they held in the Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2018 before the State Commission.

3. Brief facts are that on 03.05.2007, an Agreement was entered into between the Complainant and D. S. Naik Associates (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party”) to construct Bungalow No. A-14 measuring about 151 sq. mtrs at village St. Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa. Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- as consideration. This Agreement was notarized but not registered before the Sub-Registrar. The Opposite Party handed over possession of the bungalow on 10.06.2013 and Occupancy Certificate on 16.08.2016. As per Clause 26 of the Agreement, the Opposite Part

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top