Back
J. RAJENDRA, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Samagratha Holistic Homes – Appellant
Versus
Chacko N. C. – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.—The respondent/complainant/Chacko N.C. (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” filed the Consumer Complaint bearing C.C. No.179 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) against the petitioners/opposite parties namely M/s. Samagratha Holistic Homes and Ms/Annamma Abraham (hereinafter referred to as the “the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2”) by pleadings that the respondent had entered into an agreement with opposite party No.1 on 22.02.2012 for extension and renovation of the residential building of the respondent and the work has to be completed within a period of six months from the date of fixing of door frames as per the agreement dated 22.02.2012. The respondent had paid Rs.16,50,000/- to the opposite party No.1and 2 in terms of the agreement dated 22.02.2012 @ Rs.1,550/- per sq. ft. The opposite parties could not complete the construction work in terms of the agreement dated 22.02.2012 within the stipulated time and as such the respondent filed a Complaint
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like an appellate court.
The National Commission emphasized its limited revisional jurisdiction, requiring clear jurisdictional errors for interfering with concurrent findings of fact from lower forums.
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....
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....
Absence of prayer “ Even in absence of specific prayer, this commission can grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Possession – Failure to deliver possession constitutes a recurrent cause of action and that the developer had misled the complainant by collecting funds without holding necessary statutory permission....
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
