Back
AJITH KUMAR D., RADHAKRISHNAN K. R.
Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Padmaja – Respondent
ORDER
Ajith Kumar D., Presiding Member—This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party in C.C.No.343/2015 on the file of
the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (the District Commission for short).
2. On 26.06.2017 the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund Rs.3,74,707/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven only) to the complainant being the excess amount received along with interest @8% per annum and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs.
3. The allegations contained in the complaint in short are stated below:
The complainant and the opposite party had entered into an agreement for the construction of a building with a plinth area of 743sq.ft. @Rs.1,150/- per sq.ft. The proposed construction is the extension of a shop room and the said work was finished. Subsequently, the opposite party had agreed to construct the first floor of the building at the rate fixed for the earlier construction. Complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only). The opposite party delayed the construction by raising an additional
Separate Agreement – Complainant would submit that no separate agreement was executed, since the opposite parties had agreed to carry out the construction as per the rate agreed in Exhibit A1 with re....
Remand – Ordering a remand would cause additional hardships to the parties to the list as no useful purpose would be served in doing so.
Commercial Purpose — All shop rooms are commercial buildings, at the time of issuing building permits. This is not the deciding factor that the complainant was planning to use the shop for commercial....
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like an appellate court.
Allotment of flat – Collection of excessive amount – Defects in flat – Deficiency in service.
Adequate Compensation – The conduct of the complainants in this regard is to mislead this Commission. But that alone may not be a ground to deprive the complainants from seeking adequate compensation....
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
