Tag: Consumer Protection Act 1986

Consumer Law: Delay in Possession-Consumer Protection Act 1986

Consumer Law: Delay in Possession: Despite expiry of seven years after the allotment opposite party did not deliver possession of flat to the complainant and committed deficiency in service in a positive manner.

  • There is no provision under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 that version filed by opposite party would be treated as evidence of opposite party. It is held that version of opposite party is only pleadings of opposite party. It is held that pleadings of opposite party and evidence of opposite party under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 qua controversial facts are entirely two different concepts under Consumer Protection act 1986. Hence adverse inference is drawn against opposite party for not filing affidavit as per modes mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts.
  • Despite expiry of seven years after the allotment opposite party did not deliver possession of flat to the complainant and committed deficiency in service in a positive manner.
  • State Commission is of the opinion that reduction of cost of flat by opposite party would not exonerate opposite party from its liability to complete construction work by June 2011. It is held that unilaterally reducing costs of construction is not binding upon complainant.
  • opposite party could not take benefits of its own wrongs by way of forfeiting earnest money and other administrative charges.

     Download PDF 

    Consumer Law: Delay in Possession - Feb -2018

Share withShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrShare on RedditEmail this to someone