Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
Janki Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Poonaram Sahu – Respondent
ORDER
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘State Commission’) order dated 28.06.2017 in Appeal No.219 of 2017, wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP and reversed the Order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg (“District Forum”) dated 10.02.2017 in CC No.364 of 2016.
2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred as per the Complaint before District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that in January 2015, the complainant contracted with Opposite Party (OP) to demolish her house and construct a new one. They agreed @ Rs.125 per square foot for the ground floor and @ Rs.120 per square foot for the first floor. Construction began on 25.01.2015. Due to lethargic and suspicious behaviour of OP, she executed a formal agreement on 26.03.2015, through her brother, Sanjay Sav specifying the terms of construction. The OP prepared excessive concrete materials, leading to wastage of approximately 70 bags of cement and
Absence of Evidence – In the absence of evidence produced by the complainant in the form of terms of contract entered into between the parties, bills for such alleged items procured in excess, and ev....
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like an appellate court.
Allotment of flat – Deficiency in service – Multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justifiable.
The National Commission emphasized its limited revisional jurisdiction, requiring clear jurisdictional errors for interfering with concurrent findings of fact from lower forums.
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....
Remand – Ordering a remand would cause additional hardships to the parties to the list as no useful purpose would be served in doing so.
1) Cancellation of the Residential House by the Petitioner, instead of correction of defect in the building and further allotment of the same to the third party, certainly amounts to deficiency in se....
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
