Back
J. RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
M. Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
K. Rajasekhar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (State Commission) Order dated 21.08.2017 in FA No. 1016/2013 which allowed the Appeal of the Complainant and set aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I at Hyderabad (‘District Forum’) order dated 28.03.2013 in C.C. No. 79/2012.
2. As per Registry, there is 100 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For reasons stated in IA/5984/2018, the delay is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
4. Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that he paid Rs.2,00,000 vide cheque No. 856878 dated 21.11.2006 and Rs.2,25,000 vide cheque No. 856877 dated 01.12.2006, aggregating to Rs.4,25,000, to the Opposite Parties (OPs) as per the terms of the Agreement. The OP had assured to sell and handover 1000 sq. yds. of developed plotted area after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities. However, the said undertaking never materialized, as ther
Plot Buyers Agreement – Merely labelling brochure as an “investment proposal” or giving buyer option to resell plot does not by itself make the transaction commercial one.
The court affirmed that ownership transfer must occur before financial obligations arise, and established consumer rights based on livelihood motivations in property transactions.
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....
Investment for profit does not qualify as consumer protection under the Act.
A purchaser's intent to earn rental income does not automatically classify the transaction as 'commercial purpose' under the Consumer Protection Act, allowing them to maintain status as a consumer.
A partnership firm qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, establishing rights to seek redress for deficiency in service.
Basic Amenities - In the present case, the Opposite Party Authority had completely failed to provide basic amenities like approach roads on the sides of the allotted Plots, which is a clear case of d....
Stocks and Shares - It is not the case of the Complainant that he had invested the money in share market exclusively for earning his livelihood, thus the Complainant is not a Consumer.
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
