Back
MILIND S. SONAWANE, NISHA AMOL CHAVHAN, NAGESH C. KUMBRE
Sudhakar S/o Dasrath Alies Dasrathseth Birari – Appellant
Versus
N. K. Developers Kopargaon, Registered Partnership Firm Through and for Partners Kailash S/o Ravindrappa Sakhare – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member—This is the case filed under S.49 read with S.35 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019. ( the ‘C.P. Act’ for short).
It is case of Complainant that, he has Purchased the Flat No. A-003, from the Respondents. The price of the flat was Rs.15,00,000/-. The complainant agreed to purchase the same. He has paid Rs.3 lakhs as an earnest amount. The rest of the amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of agreement to sale.
2. It is further stated that on 27/2/2012, respondents agreement to sale. However, thereafter the respondents took the stand that due to rise of the prices of the building material and other factors Rs.10 Lakhs more to be paid. The respondents though assured start of the construction but they never completed it. There are many deficiencies in it.
3. As such complainant claimed the refund of the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- along with 18% interest from 2011 to till the date of realization with the other ancillary relief.
4. The points for determination along with our findings thereon are as for follows.
| Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
| 1. | Whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint? | No |
(1) Multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justifiable. (2) Forfeiture of amount – Cancellation of allotment – Deduction of more than 10% of deposit as earnest money held invalid.
Pecuniary jurisdiction – For the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the value of the consideration paid for goods or services should be consid....
Complicated questions – Nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which could not be settled on the basi....
A balanced and reasonable order passed by State Commission is not amenable to interference in revision.
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under CP Act, 2019 is determined solely by the value of consideration paid for goods or services & not by value of goods or services t....
LAW POINTReady Reckoner – Compensation payable to the complainant should not be calculated on the basis of the current ready reckoner price of the flat.
Delay in allotment of flat – Challenge to bar of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be raised at the first instance & cannot be permitted at the appellate stage.
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
