Back
SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Julian Glynn Broughton – Appellant
Versus
Bellagio Projects Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Consumer Complaint has been filed by the Complainants against the Opposite Party under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for payment of overall compensation of Rs.1,16,31,568/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from 01.02.2020 till date of actual payment.
2. The brief facts leading upto the present Complaint are that the Complainant No.1 is a businessman and Complainant No.2 is the 95-year-old mother of Complainant No.1. The Opposite Party widely advertised their project namely, Bellagio Lvl Nxt at Rajarhat, Kolkata. The Complainants, specifically for residence of Complainant No.2, booked a residential apartment bearing flat no. A109 in Block A on 1st Floor with a super-builtup area of 1344 sq. ft. approx. along with one covered car parking space in the said project. The Complainants paid a booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 29.10.2014 and further paid an amount of Rs.9,03,371/- on 24.11.2014. It is submitted by the Complainants that the Opposite Party unilaterally prepared a Sale Agreement for the said flat which was signed and executed on 02.02.2015 and the Complainants were compelled to sign the said Agreement as they h
One-sided - Complainants cannot be made bound to the terms of the Agreement, which is one-sided and unfair.
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....
LAW POINT Global recession – Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on global recession while retaining the amou....
Refund – it is well within the Complainant’s right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation as construction is still not complete.
Valid Possession – Mere completion of structure cannot be said that the Apartment is ready for valid possession.
(1) Earing profits - The onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to....
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.
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
