Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, President, BIMLA KUMARI, Member
OMAXE BUILDHOME PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
MONICA TIWARI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of booking, payments, and unilateral allotment change. (Para 1 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 2. district commission upheld jurisdiction and found op deficient. (Para 2) |
| 3. appellant argues lack of jurisdiction and no service deficiency. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 25) |
| 4. pecuniary jurisdiction based on claimed amount, not unit value. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. op must prove commercial purpose; respondents are consumers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. territorial jurisdiction valid where op has office in delhi. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. unilateral allotment change constitutes service deficiency. (Para 24 , 29) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; district order upheld. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“Complainants have requested to pass an award directing M/s Omaxe Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to recall the cancellation letter & to issue revised demand note. And in case, the unit is not available, OP may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,94,375/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realisation. (ii) To pay compensation of Rs.2,00,
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
