Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Indrajit Dutta vs Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 5 February, 2015
19. The principal question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, complainant is a consumer, within the meaning of consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) (i) of the Act, or not. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties placed reliance on case titled Chilukuri Adarsh Vs. M/s Ess Ess Vee Constructions, MANU/CF/0258/2012 (National Commission) to contend that even when a consumer had booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounted to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose. He also placed reliance on Indrajit Dutta Vs. Samriddhi Developers Pvtr.
Jag Mohan Chhabra And Anr. vs Dlf Universal Ltd. on 23 August, 2007
Civil Appeal No.6030-6031 of 2008 was filed against the decision of the National Commission, in Jag Mohan Chhabra's case (supra), which was dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 29.09.2008.
Chilukuri Adarsh vs M/S Ess Ess Vee Constructions on 2 July, 2012
Similar view was taken by the National Commission, in Saavi Gupta and another Vs. M/s Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Complaint No.208 of 2012 decided on 01.10.2012 and Chilukuri Adarsh Vs. ESS ESS VEE Constructions's case (supra), MANU/CF/0258/2012 = III (2012) CPJ 315 (NC). In view of the law settled by the National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, it is held that the complainant, who was having more than one residential property, in his name during the period 2008, till January 2014 did not fall within the definition of consumer, and, as such, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1