Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.56 seconds)

Subodh Pawar vs M/S. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & 4 ... on 24 September, 2018

(iii)     The aforesaid payment shall be made within three months from today. (iv)    If an appeal is preferred by the OP against the decision of this Commission dated 24.09.2018 in Subodh Pawar (supra), the final order which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said appeal, shall also apply to this case, in supersession of the order passed hereinabove.   ......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016

It was held by the Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) that the value of the service in such cases would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder.  The amount actually paid by the flat buyer to the builder would have absolutely no relevance in such a case, the only relevant factors being the value of the service i.e. the sale price agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder and the compensation claimed in the consumer complaint.  For instance, if a flat buyer agrees to purchase a residential house for a consideration of more than Rupees one crore, but pays only Rs.10.00 lacs to the builder and is aggrieved on account of the builder having failed to honour his contractual commitment, the appropriate Forum, if he wants to file a consumer complaint, would be this Commission, since the value of the service i.e. the price which he had agreed to pay to the builder for the flat was more than Rupees one crore. In the present case, admittedly, the sale price of the flat was agreed at more than Rs.1,38,00,000/-. Therefore, it is only and only this Commission which would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 589 - Full Document
1