Back
A. P. SAHI, INDER JIT SINGH
TDI Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Vohra – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member.—The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondents as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 13.05.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 221/2012 inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the State Commission in CC/221/2012.
2. The Appellants were Opposite Parties before the State Commission and the Respondents were Complainants in the said CC/221/2012 before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 01.07.2016. Parties filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.11.2016 (Appellants) and 07.10.2016 (Respondents) respectively.
3. The present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 73 days as pointed out by the Registry. IA/5912/2016 has been filed for Condonation Delay. Delay in filing the First Appeal is condoned after hearing both sides and after considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and those adduced during the hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the c
(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....
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
(1) Delay – It is undisputed that there has been delay in the handing over possession of the Flat as per the Agreement and the OP had cancelled the allotment to the Complainant.(2) Question of Law – ....
One-sided contractual terms - Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.
Refund rights of consumers upheld despite payment issues, highlighting supplier's persistent obligation to deliver services as contracted under consumer protection principles.
IMPORANT POINT Paper Possession – without obtaining completion certificate, offering possession is not a valid/legal possession and is only a paper-possession.
The court affirmed entitlement to interest from deposit dates for delayed possession in consumer transactions, emphasizing the necessity of timely relief.
(1) Third party – The opposite party has contested the complaint on the grounds of maintainability alleging that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the ambit of section 2(1)(d) of the Act as....
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
