Back
MUKESH V. SHARMA, SATISH A. MUNDE
Vir Bhan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Dhulchand Shankar Naik – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member.—The complainants, Mr. Vir Bhan Sharma and Miss Disha Sharma, have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Shri Dhulchand Shankar Naik, proprietor of M/s. Ashtavinayak Developers, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices in relation to the purchase of Flat No. 704 in Sai Regency Building, Ulwe Node, Navi Mumbai.
2. The complainants state that they are consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and had entered into a registered agreement with the Opposite Party on 30/06/2017 for purchasing the said flat for a total consideration of Rs.54,35,300/-. In addition to this amount, the Opposite Party extorted Rs.31,500/- towards monthly maintenance for 12 months in advance and Rs.25,000/- towards society registration expenses.
3. The possession of the flat was handed over to the complainants on 12/08/2017, and they shifted to the flat on 17/10/2017. Upon shifting, they discovered several defects and deficiencies in the flat, such as leakage and seepage from the west side wall and ceiling of the master bedroom, improper fitting of water taps, non-functioning of flush t
1. In terms of construction, cause of action remains concurrent and continuous till possession is delivered.2. Failure to comply with the rules of the contract on part of the builder (Opp. Parties he....
Consumers cannot be denied protections based on unsubstantiated claims of commercial purpose in property transactions.
(1) Housing Construction or business activity – Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Ac....
Deficiency in services occurs when contractual obligations regarding timely delivery are not met, allowing for consumer redress.
Valid Redressal - The flat purchasers cannot be made to wait for inordinate period of time hoping to get possession and that refund of amounts deposited is a valid redressal.
Commercial Purpose - Mere allegation, that the purchase of the said flat is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.
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
