SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 33720

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S.GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
BRIGHT STORE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. – Respondent
SC/23/CC/17/86



Petitioner Advocates:SH.AMIT GUPTA ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/23/CC/17/86 R.S.GUPTA PRESENT ADDRESS - 168, RUCHI LIFE SCAPE, JAATKHEDI, BHABHA INSTITUTE, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL. 462 026 ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus BRIGHT STORE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - REG.OFF.610, TULSIRANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI

400021 ,MADHYA PRADESH.

BRIGHT STORE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - CORP.OFF.2/1, SOUTH TUKOGUNJ, BEHIND HIGH COURT, INDORE.

452 001 ,MADHYA PRADESH.

BRIGHT STORE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - SITE OFF.JAAT KHEDI, BEHIND BHABHA INSTITUTE, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

R.S.GUPTA FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

BRIGHT STORE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

DATED: 07/07/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 86 OF 2017 FILED ON 03.07.2017 DECIDED ON 07.07.2025 R.S.GUPTA S/O SHRI B. L. GUPTA, R/O ORCHID-168, RUCHI LIFESCAPE, JAATKHEDI, BEHIND BHABHA INSTITUTE, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL-462 026 (MP) … COMPLAINANT.

VERSUS BRIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY REGD.OFFICE-610, TULSIRANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 (MS)

CORPORATE OFFICE-2/1, SOUTH TUKOGANJ, BEHIND HIGH COURT, INDORE-452 001 (MP)

SITE OFFICE-JAATKHEDI, BEHIND BHABHA INSTITUTE, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL 462 026 (MP) … OPPOSITE PARTIES BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant.

Shri Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party.

O R D E R

(Passed On 07.07.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that the the opposite party after getting requisite permissions from different authorities developed residential cum commerial project in 83.36 acres (33.73 hectares) of land situated at village-Jaatkhedi, Tehsil-Huzur, -2-

District-Bhopal in the name and style 'Ruchi Lifescape'. Since the complainant had already purchased a residential house in the same project and wants to purchase a shop for earning his livelihood, he approached the opposite paty and on 30.04.2012 applied to purchase a corner shop no.4 in First Floor of Local Shopping Complex-B for which he paid registration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. After accepting the application of the complainant the opposite party issued allotment cum acceptance letter dated 14 March 2014 (C-1) for shop no.4 in First Floor of Local Shopping Complex B of built up area 561 sq.ft (with 160 sq.ft common area) @ Rs.3,500/- per sq.ft total sum of Rs.20,23,500/- (including water, electricity and maintenance charges).

2. It is submitted by the complainant that as per allotment-cum-acceptance letter till 27.07.2015 he paid Rs.19,97,091/- to the opposite party and only Rs.26,449/- has to be paid. As per condition no.9 of allotment-cum-acceptance letter the opposite party had to give possession of the shop after construction within a period of 12 months i.e. 14.03.2015 from the date of allotment. It is further submitted that in February-2016 when he inspected the site he found that his shop was incomplete and in order to promote the shops situated at upper floors, the opposite party started construction work for lift in common area in front of shop no.4 in the year 2016 against the approved map whereas any addition or -3-

alteration was prohibited under the terms and conditions of allotment-cum- acceptance letter. The opposite party opposed the said construction work and wrote letters to the opposite party. The opposite party vide letter dated 08.02.2017 asked the complainant to get possession of the shop after depositing the remaining amount. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite party fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top