Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.42 seconds)
Rajeev Sharma vs Emaar Mgf on 30 August, 2016 cites

Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. & Anr. vs Dilshad Gill on 27 May, 2015

It was clearly stated by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill's case (supra), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. Moreover, the Opposite Party in its written statement clearly stated the structure work of Tower H is complete and internal finishing works of flat is being undertaken and possession of the flat should be offered soon after completion. It is clearly proved that the Opposite Party has not fulfilled its part of the Agreement and failed to develop the infrastructure alongwith other amenities and failed to offer possession of the unit to the complainants, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement. So, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Party is, thus, in breach of its part of the obligation and is deficient in providing services even after receipt of the huge amount and, as such, the Opposite Party is not entitled to forfeit any amount, and refund the deposited amount to the complainants.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 181 - Full Document

Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015

In a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 1050 - Full Document

Dlf Universal Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi Gupta on 15 February, 2016

Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in  DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  Revision Petition No. 3861 of 2014, decided on 26.08.2015 . The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that, being NRI, the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainants, for speculation. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 467 - Full Document

Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004

Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling them (Consumer Foras), to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of 'compensation'. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainant(s). The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, the complainants suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment, at the hands of the Opposite Party, for a number of years, as it neither offered/delivered physical possession of unit nor refunded the amount to them, despite repeated requests. The complainants, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. Compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainants, are, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1208 - Full Document
1   2 Next