Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA
Anant Ram – Appellant
Versus
Cloud 9 Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) is filed by the complainants alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, seeking possession or in the alternative, refund of the amount deposited along with penal interest and other compensation in respect of the flat booked by them with the opposite party viz., M/s Cloud 9 Projects Pvt. Ltd., in a project promoted and developed by it.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainants had booked a flat in a residential Group Housing project “Lotus Boulevard – Espacia Housing Project” (in short, ‘project’) promoted and developed by the Opposite party located at Sector 100, Noida, Uttar Pradesh for their residential purpose. The booking was originally in the name of their son (‘Original Allottee’) on 24.12.2009. An offer of allotment letter was issued by the opposite party to the original allottee on 10.03.2010 allotting apartment no. 1402 in Tower 37, admeasuring 237.83 sq ft for a total sale consideration of Rs.93,88,600/-. As per clause 5.1 of the Agre
Right to Compensation - The right of the consumer to be compensated for inordinate delay in the offer of possession of a residential apartment booked by them due to inordinate delays by builders when....
(1) Delay - the construction of a residential apartment constitutes a ‘service’ and that the delay in not adhering to the indicated time schedule constitutes deficiency in service.(2) Refund – the de....
Installment – Once the instalments were collected, the buyers are sought to be non-suited on a multitude of grounds, primarily the liability of the Government in not providing infrastructure and to c....
Unreasonable Delay - In a case of an unreasonable delay in offering possession, a buyer cannot be compelled to accept possession at a belated stage and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid w....
The court held that the delay in possession does not constitute a deficiency in service, provided the developer adheres to the agreed timeline including permissible grace periods.
Delay in delivery of possession constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Right to claim refund - the complainant in the present circumstances have a legitimate right to claim refund alongwith fair delay compensation/interest from the OP.
(1) Bald assertion – In the absence of any evidence being brought on record, merely a bald assertion that the project was delayed due to in action by the Government or its statutory organisations and....
Delays in possession of real estate mandate full refund to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
