Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S. M. Kantikar (Presiding Member), *Binoy Kumar (Member)
Mrs. Manju Sharma – Appellant
Versus
M/s Raheja Developers Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in possession despite full payments. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. rights of consumers against unfair practices. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 3. consumer protections uphold validity against unjust contract. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 4. consumer entitlement to fair compensation for delay. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. final directions for possession and compensation. (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
1. The present batch of Consumer Complaints have been filed under S.21(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Actâ€) by the Complainants, against M/s Raheja Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party’) for delay in construction of the Project.
2. Since the facts and question of law involved in these Complaints are similar except for minor variations in the dates, events and flat numbers, these Complaints are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Consumer Complaint No. 728 of 2020 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 728 of 2020.
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that initially Mrs. Manju Sharma booked an Apartment on an independent floor (hereinaf
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
