Back
J. RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Salot Builders – Appellant
Versus
Beach Resort Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM, VSM.—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) assailing the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (“State Commission”) Order dated 04.10.2019 in First Appeal No. A/16/224 vide which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by Opposite Parties No.1&2 and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Suburban District, Mumbai (“District Forum”) Order dated 09.10.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 389/2009.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the complainant is a housing society, while Opposite Party (OP) No. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, and OPs- 2 to 5 are its partners. The OPs constructed a residential building at Juhu Koliwada (West), Mumbai, on Survey No. 35 (C-3), TPS II during 1975-1976. These flats were purchased by the members of the said society, and an agreement was executed between the parties on 11.11.1976. The possession of flats was handed over to the
Limited Jurisdiction – Commission’s revisional Jurisdiction is limited. Since there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the deficiency of service by both lower courts, and no jurisdictional er....
“Change in layout plan of a housing scheme without intimation to allottees amounts to deficiency in service.”
No revision petition against the order passed in appeal filed under section 27-A of Act is maintainable before national commission.
LAW POINTConcurrent finding “ there is a concurrent finding of deficient service on the part of the Petitioners by the Fora Below which does not warrant any interference from National Commission in R....
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
The court affirmed that ownership transfer must occur before financial obligations arise, and established consumer rights based on livelihood motivations in property transactions.
An unregistered agreement does not invalidate a consumer complaint; service of notice is deemed valid under the applicable law, and the appropriate legal remedy is an appeal, not a revision.
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
