Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consumer Case
Consumer Case
V.
mentioned address.
3. That the Complainant is a housewife who has used her personal savings to
part of anchor Store/ Hyper Mart (Larger Area) bearing No. 82 on the first
situated at Beta-IT, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P) from
OPPOSITE PARTY 1.
newspapers that units in their project were available for sale on an assured
return basis
that they would lease out the unit to
5. That OPPOSITE PARTY 1 also assured
is, Super 99, INOX, etc.
different entities like Reliance Digital, Lev
already agreed to open their
According to Opposite Party 1 such entities had
in Omaxe Connaught Place.
respective stores, retail shops, showrooms etc.
plainant that the rental amount
6. That OPPOSITE PARTY 1 assured the Com
ld not be less than the amount
of the unit purchased by the Complainant wou
rn. The assured return period
of the last monthly payment of assured retu
the form of monthly rental of
was from 2011-2022. An Assured Return in
PARTY 1 in the agreement
Rs.41,537/- was promised by OPPOSITE
ANNEXURE 1.
9. That the Complainant has followed all the terms and conditions mentioned
in the Allotment Letter dated 05.02.2011 and paid the entire amount as per
marked as ANNEXURE 2.
[Emphasis supplied]
unit.
12. That the Complainant was not given an option to take possession of the said
13. That despite the reluctance of the Complainant a lease agreement was
PARTY 1 for the period of 11 years from the effective date i.e. 16.02.2011.
It was further agreed that the period commencing from 16.02.2011 until
14. That the OPPOSITE PARTY 1 paid assured returns/monthly rental only till
payment, thereby violating the clause of 1(b) of the Lease Agreement dated
PARTY 1 made some part payments that the Complainant has received
15. That the OPPOSITE PARTY I paid the assured amount till the period of
assured return i.e. 11 .02.2018 and thereafter has not paid any amount
towards monthly rent despite having possession of the said unit. Therefore,
it is evident from the conduct of OPPOSITE PARTY 1 that from the very
A Copy of the Account Statement of Bank of the last payment done by the
ANNEXURES.
16. That the Complainant was lured by OPPOSITE PARTY 1 to purchase the
PARTY 1 shall pay a monthly rental of not less than monthly assured return
amount for the entire period of lease agreement i.e. from 2011 to 2022.
17. That upon numerous reminders, persuasion and phone calls made by the
following manner: -
18. That OPPOSITE PARTY 1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs. 13,77,540/- (Rupees
response whatsoever.
osite Party 1 and 2
A copy of Legal Notice dated 20.07.2019 sent to the Opp
in service' as:
"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in
maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been
23. That under the abovementioned definition the failure of OPPOSITE PARTY
24. That even after repeated requests and legal notices the OPPOSITE PARTY
IV. List of other unit owners in the project OCN Greater NOIDA along
25. That the Complainant has not merely faced financial loss but also great
mental harassment and agony. Therefore, the Complainant has been left
with no choice but to seek justice from this Hon 'ble Commission.
27. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Ors. 2
[(1995) (1) SCC 551) speaking about the heads of compensation, the
are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of
28. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development
thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but
29. That the Complainant is well within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction
30. From the above, it is evident that this Hon'ble Consumer Commission is
well within its jurisdiction to award compensation not only for the monetary
loss or injury suffered by the complainant but also for injustice suffered by
the consumer. In the case in hand, going by the entirety of the facts and
the complainant not only the amount for services but also for the gross
injustice that he had to face at the hands of a Opposite Parties who mentally
repeated by the company and puts a deterrent effect on this vicious practice
consumer's rights.
31.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 776,
legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted
by Parliament."
32. That the aforesaid amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade
made to suffer due to the above said acts of the opposite party.
humiliation and harassment over and above litigation costs due to deliberate
PRAYER
In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission
(ii) Pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to give possession of the
d. List of other unit owners in the project OCN Greater NOIDA along
e. Pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to give the rental amount
2018 till January 2021 along with interest 18% p.a. on the paid
damages for the physical and mental torture and undue hardship
expenses; and
Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
COMPLAINANT
Through