Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member), Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Member)
Amit Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Berry Developers & Infrastructure Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint lodged under consumer protection act for refund. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposite party's arguments regarding compliance with occupancy certificate requirements. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. importance of obtaining an occupancy certificate for possession. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
1. Heard Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Vishnu Anand, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Amit Mittal (complainant - 1) has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) refund entire amount deposited by the complainant and all other similarly situated flat buyers with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of respective deposits till the date of refund, (ii) to pay Rs. 11,000 as cost of the litigation; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Above complaint was filed as a representative complaint under S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , for which, leave was granted vide order dated 5.3.2019. Thereafter, six more flat buyers were impleaded time to time on their applications.
3. The complainants stated that Berry Developers & Infrastructure Private Limited (the opposite party) was a compan
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
