Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
Randhir Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Q. S. Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of complaint, agreement terms, and the alleged deficiency in service by the developers. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the opposite parties regarding payment defaults, unauthorized construction, and property sealing. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's legal interpretation of 'deficiency' and confirmation of breach of agreement terms regarding parking space. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final orders directing cessation of encroaching construction and payment of compensation for mental agony. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West District, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties. The District Commission returned the Complaint of the Complainant vide order dated 06.07.2018, citing the reason that the District Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present matter, wherein the Complainant has alleged deficiency in service and has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a. Pass a direction u/S. 13 (3b) for inju
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
