A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ATHYDERABAD
C.C. 46/2012
Between :
Smt. D. Lakshmiw/oPent House, 601, 8-3-229/41
Tahir
Hyderabad – 73
And
01.M/s.Plot No. # 29, Road No. 35, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad – 500 033
Rep. by its Chairman/Managing Director
02.ShenigarapuManaging Director
M/s.
Plot # 629
Hyderabad – 500 033.
Counsel for the complainant
Counsel for the Respondents
Coram
And
Thursday, the Twentieth Day of June
Two Thousand Thirteen
****
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying to direct the opposite parties to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.23,62,972/- paid by the complainant as part sale consideration, to pay
2. The brief facts of the complaint
3. OPs
It is stated that the complainant is not
5.
change
6. Heard both side7. Now the
(
(ii)
(ii)
8. reported in C.D.J 2012 S.C 370 between M/S
9.
“ The
In view of the said decision, once the party opts for remedy of arbitration it may be possible to say that subsequently Consumer Complaint is not maintainable but in this case none of the parties opted for remedy of arbitration so as to say that subsequently this complaint under C. P. Act cannot be filed and thus by virtue of Section 3 of C P Act being additional remedy provided to the complainant she can file the consumer complaint before this Commission and thus the said objection of the opposite party does not hold any water.
10.
11.
12.
Of course, there is no dependable evidence from the complainant that the flat was sold by the Ops
13.
CC No. 46/2012
Smt. D. LakshmiAnd
M/s.
Chief affidavit of Complaint filed and Ex. A1 to A12 marked.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For complainant
For opposite parties
EXHIBITS MARKED
For
Ex. A1
Ex. A2
Ex. A3
Ex. A4 Ex. A5
Ex. A6
favour
Ex. A7
Ex. A8
Ex.A9
Ex.A10 Ex.A11 Ex.A12
For Opposite
