SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PINKI
M3M India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
R. Ramesh – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:A.R. Takkar, Shriya Takkar, Tejasvi and Mr. Kapil Bakshi, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Pradeep Mahajan, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

1. “The present complainant has been filed under Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CP Act) against the Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case that the Complainant are a “Consumer” as defined in the CP Act. The Complainants seek redressal of the grievances for deficiency in services, unfair trade practices and failure of services against the OP.

3. It is further alleged that Complainants jointly booked a residential apartment in M3M Woodshire, Sector-107, Dwarka Expressway, Gurgaon for their residential purpose i.e. two bedroom plus study Apartment no. 903, Floor 9, Tower B-09 super area 1534 sq. feet for a total consideration of Rs.98,51,554/- (Rs. Ninety Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Four only) which included basic sale price of Rs.82,06,000/- plus DC, Club Membership, IFMS, Car Parking and PLC charges paid a sum of Rs.16,92,099/- towards the cost of the residential apartment vide application dated 03.12.2012.

4. It is further alleged that the provisional allotment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top