Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. vs Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 25 April, 2008
2. It was further stated that the
possession offered was not fit for habitation and it was also not safe to live
at a place which was under construction as any untoward accident could occur
and also when all the amenities which were part and parcel of the flat and for
which the complainants have paid, were not provided, how could the Opposite
Parties offer possession of the flat. It was further stated that they were also
shocked to see that on the roof of Tower No.7, the Opposite Parties permitted
one cellular company to install its cellular tower which was in sheer violation
of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. It was further stated that till today no Developer-Buyer
agreement was signed between the Opposite Parties and the complainants and it was
only the Allotment Letter which was signed between them whereas as per Section
6 of the Punjab Apartments and property Regulation Act, 1995, the builder was not
entitled to receive an amount more than 25% unless the agreement was signed. It
was further stated that the Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.94,753/- as
holding charges, on the plea, that since the complainants failed to take
possession of the flat whereas the fact was that the Opposite Parties never
sent any offer of possession letter to the complainants and rather there was no
question of possession arising when the flat was not complete for possession as
construction was going on. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed
to get the conveyance deed of any of the flat, in the township executed and
registered, therefore, due to this reason also they wanted to get their money
back alongwith interest @ 18%. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of
omission and commission amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. When the grievance of the
complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under
Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as
the Act only), was filed seeking the relief that the Opposite Parties be
directed to refund a sum of Rs.42,92,650/-, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.;
return all PRE EMI and EMI paid to the HDFC till date amounting to Rs.
3,61,605/- till May, 2013 and further till the decision of the present
complaint; Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation
on account of mental agony, harassment; Rs.5 lacs as financial loss besides Rs.25000/- as costs of litigation.
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
1