Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
GIRISH KULKARNI – Appellant
Versus
HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint about service deficiency regarding promised flat area. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants claim irregularities in the complaint based on jurisdiction and delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. fraud established as complainant concealed key information. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. clear evidence of perjury and misconduct by the complainant. (Para 9) |
| 5. complaint dismissed; fraud confirmed; appeals upheld. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
ORDER (ORAL)
These two Appeals have been filed by partners of M. K. builders and Developers against the order dated 30.09.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 2002.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 had filed the Complaint against M. K. builders and Developers and its two partners, namely, Mr. Miranda and Mr. Girish Kulkarni and also against Snehal Park Co-operative Housing Society Limited alleging deficiency in service against them. It is submitted by her that she had purchased flat No.301 in Snehal Apartment situated at 3rd floor, S No.382A, P. No.152 Malonde, Vasai admeasuring 1145 sq. ft. from the Opposite Parties. It was furthe
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
