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

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, INDER JIT SINGH
Kavitha Bommareddy – Appellant
Versus
Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Malhotra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Ms. Gayatri Mansa, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Sethi, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Complainant against Opposite party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for:—

(i) To direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 30,74,813/- along with interest @ 24% from date of refund of the monies paid by the Complainant for flat.

(ii) To direct OP to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii) To direct OP to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards litigation cost.

2. Notice was issued to OP, giving them 45 days’ time to file written statement. Written statement was filed by OP.

3. It is averred in the Complaint that:—

(i) The complainant booked a residential apartment with the OP in a project namely ‘Rise’ which the OP was to develop in Sector 37-D of Gurgaon. The booking was made on 02/02/2013. After allotment of a residential apartment bearing No.B-1101 having super area of 1825 sq.ft. to the Complainant the parties executed an Apartment Buyers agreement (ABA) on 06/03/2013, incorporating their res

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