Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Firoz Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
These cross appeals have been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) assailing the Order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in complaint No. 10 of 2022.
2. Firoz Ahmad, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) has filed appeal no. 816 of 2022 for enhancement in compensation while Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd and its Director Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, the opposite parties before the State Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘builder’), have filed appeal No. 935 of 2022 for setting aside the Order dated 26.09.2022 of the State Commission.
3. On the final date of hearing i.e. 06.11.2023, it was seen that vide order dated 15.09.2023, a final opportunity was granted to the Paramount Probuild Pvt. Ltd. to be represented on the next date of hearing and file their short synopsis of arguments. They were not present and had also not filed their short synopsis.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and perused the material available on record.
5. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the com
Multiple compensations – Multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable.
Allottees held entitled for compensation for delay in delivery of possession of flat in question.
One sided contract term – The Builder cannot seek to bind the Buyers with such one-sided contractual terms.
Parties are entitled to compensation for delays in possession according to the terms set in the construction agreement, despite compliance issues.
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
