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

DAYA CHAUDHARY, URVASHI AGNIHOTRI
Manjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Housefed, Punjab, through its Managing Director – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: None

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, President.—The complainant-Manjit Kaur has approached this Commission by way of filing the consumer complaint No.690 of 2019, under Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the “Act”) against the opposite party (in short “OP”) with the grievance that her husband namely Boor Singh applied for Class-III employee flat vide application form No.6103. He was allotted Class-II employee flat of tentative price of Rs.20.18 lacs vide allotment letter dated 08.07.2010. The said complaint was filed by the complainant after the death of her husband. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter an amount of Rs.12,12,000/- was paid to the OP by the husband of the complainant. The status of completion of project or handing over the physical possession was never informed. The possession thereof was to be handed over within a reasonable period of 2-3 years, but latest by 2012-13. The possession of the flat was not given to the husband of the complainant during the specified period. A letter dated 28.10.2014 was received by the husban

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