Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Daya Chaudhary, President, Vishav Kant Garg, Member
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) – Appellant
Versus
Leena Khaneja – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant paid for apartment allotment but possession delayed indefinitely. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. appellants argue investment motive; respondent claims service deficiency. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. project incomplete per invalid completion certificate. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. refund with interest due; compensation justified but reduced. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. appeal partly allowed with modified compensation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. GMADA & Anr., have filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Leena Khaneja had been allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had applied for allotment of Type
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
