Back
A. P. SAHI, INDER JIT SINGH
Lakkam Eswar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Consumer Guidance Society Rep. K. P. Ravindran – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member.—The present Revision Petitions (RPs) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.07.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1629, 1630 and 1631 of 2008 in which order dated 30.10.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 01, 02 and 97 of 2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.07.2011 of the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 1) was Respondent No. 1 before the State Commission and Opposite Party-1 before the District Forum and the Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 2) was Respondent No. 2 before the State Commission and Opposite Party No. 2 before the Dis
(1) After taking possession over constructed flats per Supplementary Agreement, Appellants are estopped from challenging its validity.(2) Under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of C....
Contractual obligations under the Consumer Protection Act require service providers to fulfill all promised specifications, and failure to do so constitutes deficiency of service.
Basement – The complainants have miserably failed to establish that basement or the parking area are common areas available to them so as to contravene Clause 15 of the agreement.
The court ruled that a consumer society cannot claim compensation for deficiency without clear evidence of service shortfalls and emphasizes obligations under the Consumer Protection Act and MOFA.
“Excess Area” - The real test for excess area would be that the opposite party should provide a comparison of the areas of the original approved common spaces and the flats with finally approved comm....
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
