Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)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. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, 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.
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, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
Section 11 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Associated Road Carriers Ltd. vs Kamlender Kashyap And Ors. on 10 January, 2008
In Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Kamlender Kashyap and Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), it was held by the National Commission, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an Agreement, between the parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras, as the Foras are not the Courts. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Section 11 of the Act, which is a para materia to Section 17 of the Act and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of Jurisdiction. Now the plea of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that the Company office of Chandigarh has closed and this Commission has no jurisdiction, has also no value, at all because at the time of booking of the unit by the complainant, the office of the Company was functioning at Chandigarh. It means that the Company kept the complainant in dark since no such communication was ever sent to the complainant regarding closing down of the Chandigarh office. Moreover, the allotment letter (Annexure C-1) annexed by the complainant, issued by the Company from their Chandigarh office clearly shows the Chandigarh address of the Company on the aforesaid document. As such, a part of cause of action, accrued to the complainant, at Chandigarh. Accordingly, this Commission at Chandigarh, in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, has territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1