Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Vatika Limited – Appellant
Versus
Khozem A Divan – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This order will dispose of First Appeal No.1441 of 2017 filed by M/s Vatika Limited (Opposite Party No.1 before the State Commission) and First Appeal No.1581 of 2017 filed by the Complainant as both the cases challenge the same impugned order dated 16.05.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.48 of 2013. First Appeal No.1441 of 2017 has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order whereas First Appeal No.1581 of 2017 has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 23.03.2007 Complainant had booked one residential unit no.17/FF/KDAV/UW in the residential project of M/s Vatika Limited named as “Urban Woods” by paying booking amount of Rs.5,71,245/- and executing an Agreement on 07.07.2007. Possession of the unit was to be handed over to the Complainant within three years, i.e., by 07.07.2010. In the subject unit, a modular kitchen and car parking space were also included. M/s Vatika Limited had made arrangement with Respondent No.2, M/s HDFC Limited, for housing loan to the applicants in the project u
Inordinate delay –In a timely fashion would constitute “deficiency in service” on the part of the Opposite Party/Builder.
Pecuniary jurisdiction – it is clear that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdict....
Occupancy Certificate – Thus an allottee/consumer was entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited by him with the Opposite Party since the Builder had failed to fulfill his contractual obligation....
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed d....
Evidence filed has to be looked into.
Non-availability of the Occupancy/Completion Certificate points to the deficiency on the part of the Appellant.
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
