Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/61/2013

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Divya Sharma Adv.

27 Jan 2014

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/61/2013
 
1. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.
through Managing Director, 10, LSC Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
2. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt.Ltd. through the Manager SCO 141-143,1stFloor,
Sector-8/C, Chandigarh-160008
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.

:

61

Date of Institution

:

02.09.2013

Date of Decision

:

27.01.2014

 

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Rajinder Pal Sharma, r/o Ward No.23, Near Khalsa School Mandir Wali Gali, Khanna, Punjab.

Complainant

V e r s u s

1.M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Managing Director, 10 LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019.

2.M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. through the Manager SCO 141-143, 1st

 

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:  

               

       Argued by:

                  

 

PER SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

    

2.           

3.          

4.           

5.           

6.    

7.          

8.           

9.          

 

Sr. No.

Description

Date of payment

Amount Due (Rs.)

ST Due

Amount Paid (Rs.)

1.

At the time of booking

4.8.2010

2,50,000.00

6,437.00

2,56,437.00

2.

At the time of allotment/within 45 days of booking.

24.11.2010

2,72,499.05

7,016.85

2,79,515.90

3.

Commencement of construction

13.6.2011

2,61,249.53

6,727.18

2,62,046.60

 

 

Total amount =

Rs.798000.00 (approx.)

 

10.         

11.        

12.        unpaid and interest on delayed payments was to be forfeited.

13.              According to Clause 5, the applicant/allottee agreed that the amount paid, with the application form, and, in installments, as the case may be, to the extent of 20% of the sale consideration of the residential plot, shall, collectively constitute the earnest money. The word used in Clause 5 of the basic terms and conditions of the application form, was applicant/allottee. Similarly, in Clauses 3 and 8, the word applicant/allottee was used. In some of the Clauses, contained in the basic terms and conditions of the application form, word applicant was only used.     

14.        

15.        

16.        

17.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 27, 2014.

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

AD


STATE COMMISSION

 

 

Argued by:

                  

 

Dated the

 

 

ORDER

 

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this complaint, filed by the complainant, has been partly accepted with no order as to costs.

 

                                                     

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.))

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.