Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Consumer Case No. 1310 of 2015

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

For the Complainant: Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Chetanya Madan, proxy counsel
For Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Advocate

Judges

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member

Acts

SECTION 24 A CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Section 11 (1), 17 (1) (a) (i) and 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act")

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Consumer Case No. 1310 of 2015

Factual and Procedural Background

The opposite party-developer, Unitech Limited, undertook development of the residential project "Unitech Habitat" at Plot No.9, Sector Pi-II, Alistonia Estate, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The complainants applied for and were allotted apartments between 2006 and 2008, executed builder-buyer agreements and made payments in instalments against agreed consideration amounts. Under the allotment terms, possession was to be delivered within 26 to 40 months from the date of the respective agreements. Possession was not delivered within the stipulated periods. The complainants filed consumer complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging failure to deliver possession and seeking relief.

On service of notice, the opposite party admitted allotment and payments but raised a preliminary objection challenging the Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction (contending that the amounts paid were less than Rs.1 crore). On merits, the opposite party pleaded Force Majeure — citing farmer agitations, land acquisition litigation (including a writ matter in the Allahabad High Court), and disruptions at the construction site — as reasons preventing delivery of possession. The complainants filed rejoinders and affidavit evidence. The Commission heard counsel, examined agreements and allotment letters, and reserved findings on jurisdiction, force majeure, limitation and compensation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the National Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints — specifically, whether interest claimed by complainants counts as "compensation" to be included in computing pecuniary value for jurisdictional threshold of Rs.1 crore.
Whether the opposite party has proved a Force Majeure defence (farmers' agitation and the Allahabad High Court order) to excuse non-delivery of possession.
Whether the complaints are barred by limitation or whether there is a continuing cause of action that keeps the complaints within limitation.
What relief/compensation is appropriate in the event the opposite party is found liable for deficiency in service — i.e., whether contract clauses (clause 4(c)(ii) or clause 4(e)) govern compensation.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

The allotment letters and builder-buyer agreements demonstrate valid allotments, agreed consideration amounts and stipulated possession timelines (26–40 months).
Substantial instalment payments were made and possession was not delivered even years after the stipulated dates.
Interest on the amounts paid should be treated as compensation (the complainants sought interest at a rate claimed in proceedings, with some counsel seeking 18% p.a.).
The cause of action is continuing because possession has neither been offered nor refusal communicated; hence the complaints are within limitation.

Opposite Party's Arguments

Preliminary objection that the complaints lie outside the National Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction because the amounts paid by the complainants (consideration amounts) are each below Rs.1 crore.
For jurisdictional calculation, interest claimed is not "compensation" and therefore should not be aggregated with the consideration amount to reach the Rs.1 crore threshold.
On merits, the opposite party relied on Force Majeure — asserting farmers' strikes, agitation over land acquisition, and a stay/observations in an Allahabad High Court writ (Gajraj Singh v. State of UP and others) that restrained development — as excusing delay in delivering possession.
As per clause 4(c)(ii) of the Builder-Buyer Agreement, compensation for delay should be Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month (subject to exceptions for reasons beyond reasonable control or Force Majeure).
Pleaded limitation: the complaints were filed several years after the contractual dates of possession (2009, 2010, 2011) and thus are time-barred under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) (as cited)	Recognition that interest on amounts paid by allottee can be in the nature of compensation; compensation must correlate with loss and is not to be awarded uniformly without regard to facts.	Court relied on this authority to hold that interest claimed by apartment buyers is compensatory in nature and thus can be included in computing value of relief for pecuniary jurisdiction; this led to the conclusion that the complaints fall within the National Commission's jurisdiction.
Meerut Development Authority Vs. M K Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12 (as cited)	Principle that where possession is not offered and no clear refusal is made, the buyer has a recurring/continuing cause of action permitting a complaint to be filed within limitation.	Court relied on this decision to hold that the present complaints were within limitation because the opposite party had not offered possession nor unequivocally refused to deliver possession, creating a continuing cause of action.
Gajraj Singh Vs. State of UP and others (Writ No. 37443 of 2011) — Allahabad High Court (referenced by opposite party)	Referable to stay/restraining directions (as alleged by opposite party) on development/master plan implementation in certain sectors pending directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board.	The Court found that reliance on this High Court order was misplaced in the present cases. The Commission noted that previous consideration by a Coordinate Bench found the Allahabad High Court order did not pertain to the land in question.
Aakash Chopra Vs. Unitech Acacia Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (CC No. 930 of 2015) — Coordinate Bench decision dated 20.06.2016 (as cited)	Considered the applicability of the Allahabad High Court order dated 21.10.2011 and concluded that the order did not pertain to the land in question; thus reliance on that order to excuse developer's non-performance was misplaced.	The present Bench agreed with the Coordinate Bench judgment and held that the opposite party's reliance on the Allahabad High Court order was wholly misplaced; this contributed to rejecting the Force Majeure defence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through the issues in the following manner:

Pecuniary Jurisdiction: The Court considered whether interest claimed by the complainants could be treated as "compensation" for the purpose of aggregating the value of relief and determining National Commission jurisdiction under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act (threshold Rs.1 crore). Relying on the reasoning in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, the Court held that interest on the consideration paid is compensatory in nature because had complainants retained payments they would have earned interest; thus interest correlates to loss. Adding claimed interest to amounts paid caused the value of relief in each case to exceed Rs.1 crore, and the Court concluded it had pecuniary jurisdiction.
Onus and Force Majeure Defence: The Court noted that the burden of proving a Force Majeure circumstance lay on the opposite party. The opposite party's allegations (farmers' strikes/agitations and a stay/observations in the Allahabad High Court matter) were examined. The Court found no cogent evidence produced by the opposite party to substantiate that farmers' agitation prevented construction. As to reliance on the Allahabad High Court order (Gajraj Singh), the Court observed that a Coordinate Bench had already considered and rejected similar reliance in CC No. 930 of 2015 (Aakash Chopra). The present Bench agreed with the Coordinate Bench's analysis that the High Court order did not pertain to the land in question and that there was no direction restraining the opposite party from developing the land at issue. Consequently, the Force Majeure defence was held to have not been proved and was rejected.
Deficiency in Service: Because the opposite party had failed to deliver possession even years after expiry of contractual dates and had not proved a valid excuse, the Court held that the opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service.
Limitation: The opposite party's plea that complaints were time-barred under Section 24-A was considered. The Court held that because the opposite party had neither offered possession nor clearly refused to deliver it, a continuing cause of action existed. Applying the principle in Meerut Development Authority Vs. M K Gupta IV, the Court found the complaints to be within limitation.
Appropriate Relief — Contractual Clauses Analysis: The Court examined contractual clauses relating to delay compensation. Clause 4(c)(ii) provided for Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month for delay except for delays beyond the company's reasonable control or Force Majeure events. Clause 4(e) provided that if the company is not in a position to offer the apartment, it shall refund the amount with simple interest at 10% p.a. and there would be no further liability. The Court interpreted clause 4(c)(ii) as applicable only to delays caused by cogent unfavourable circumstances where delay is reasonable. It found that clause 4(c)(ii) could not be used to permit a developer to retain consumer funds at a nominal cost (Rs.5/sq.ft/month) in cases where the developer deliberately failed to take steps to complete construction after receiving large payments.
Conclusion on Remedy: Given the lack of cogent reasons for delay and the failure to establish Force Majeure, the Court held that clause 4(e) applied. The opposite party was therefore liable to refund the amounts received from the complainants with simple interest at 10% per annum from the dates of respective payments until realisation. The Court quantified the amounts to be refunded (as recorded in the pleadings/evidence) and directed refund within six weeks, together with litigation costs of Rs.10,000 in each case.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The complaints were allowed. The Court held that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service, rejected the Force Majeure and limitation pleas, and directed refund with interest and costs.

Direct orders made by the Court (as recorded in the opinion):

The opposite party shall refund the entire amounts received to the respective complainants as recorded in the proceedings:
- CC No. 1310 of 2015 — ₹48,18,649/-
- CC No. 1131 of 2015 — ₹66,52,816/-
- CC No. 1312 of 2015 — ₹64,00,041/-
Refunds are to be made within six weeks from the date of the order, along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the dates of each payment till realisation.
The opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant in each case.

Implications:

The decision establishes that interest claimed by apartment buyers may be treated as compensatory for the purpose of computing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission, in line with the principle extracted from the cited authority (Ghaziabad Development Authority).
The Court reaffirmed that the burden to prove Force Majeure lies on the developer and that unsubstantiated allegations of land-acquisition litigation or agitation will not automatically absolve a developer of liability.
The Court held that where a developer cannot justify delays and where the contract contemplates refund with interest under a clause like 4(e), refund with contractual/simple interest may be an appropriate remedy instead of the nominal per sq. ft. monthly rate contemplated for reasonable delays under clause 4(c)(ii).
No broader novel legal principle was announced beyond applying and following the authorities and contract interpretation set out in the opinion; the immediate practical effect is the refund, interest and costs ordered in the three consumer complaints.

Show full summary ...

Krishna Yadav v. Unitech Limited

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 1310 OF 2015

1. KRISHNA YADAV

W/o. Late Dr. R.V.S. Yadav, R/o. C-8, Press Enclave, Saket, New Delhi - 110 017. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

1. UNITECH LIMITED

Through Its Managing Director, Regd. Office : 6, Community Centre Saket,

New Delhi - 110 017. ...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant : Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Chetanya Madan, proxy counsel For Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Advocate

Dated : 05 Apr 2018

ORDER

JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the above noted complaints are that opposite party developer undertook the development of a residential complex Unitech Habitat at Plot No.9, Sector Pi- II, Alistonia Estate, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

2. The above noted complainants applied for allotment to the apartments in the above noted project in the year 2006 to 2008. It is the case of the complainants that they were allotted specific apartments in the above noted project and pursuant to the allotment, they made payments in instalments to the opposite party against the respectively agreed consideration amount. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, opposite party was required to deliver possession of the respective apartments to the respective complainants within 26 to 40 months of the signing of respective builder- buyer agreement. It is the case of the complainants that respective date of possession have long expired but the opposite party has failed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the respective apartments to the complainants. Claiming failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the apartments within the requisite period, complainants approached this Commission by filing consumer complaints.

3. The details of apartments booked, agreed consideration amount, dates of respective builder buyer agreements between the parties, tentative dates of delivery of possession as per the agreement and the amount paid against the consideration amount by the respective complainants are provided in the chart below:

CC No. COMPLAINANTS

UNIT

DETAIL

TOTAL

CONSIDERATION

BBA

DATE

POSSESSION

DATE

TOTAL

PAID

1310/2015 Krishna Yadav Block

HBTN,

Tower- 02, Flat No.0501, 5^thFloor ₹ 53,18,641/--

01.09.2006

01.09.2009

₹

48,18,649/- 1131/2015 Sangita Singh Block

HBTN,

Tower 08, Flat No 0602 , 06^th Floor ₹ 72,21,202/--

07.05.2008 07.09.2011

₹66,52,816/- 1312/2015 Kavita Fathepuria and Manish K Fathehpuria

Block

HBTN,

Tower 03, Flat No.

0501, 5^th Floor

₹70,79,689/--

01.04.2008 01.06.2010

₹

64,00,041/-

4. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint has filed written statement wherein opposite party has admitted the allotment of the subject apartments to the complainants and the payments made by the respective complainants against the consideration amount. However, Opposite Party in its written statement has taken a preliminary objection that the complaints are not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission because the amount paid by the complainant against the consideration value is much less than rupees one crore.

5. On merits, the plea of the opposite party is that it was prevented from delivering possession of the apartment to the complainants because of circumstances beyond its control. It is alleged that opposite party could not perform its part of the contract because of the Force Majeure circumstances, namely:

(i). Noida Authority had acquired this land from farmers of the villages and allotted it to the opposite party for development of the project as per planning. The farmers went on strikes and agitation for increase of compensation and demanding developed plots in lieu of acquired land in various villages comprised in sectors of Noida and Greater Noida including the land in question

allotted to the opposite party. (ii). That the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad while deciding the bunch of writ petitions (471 writ petitions) filed by various farmers challenging the notification and acquisition of land by State of UP (leading case being writ No.37443 of 2011, Gajraj Singh Vs. State of UP and others) on 21.10.2011, restrained the Noida/Greater Noida Authority and allottees (Developers) from carrying development and implementing the Master Plan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. The notification for the acquisition of the land allotted to the OP was also subject matter of some writ petitions. As such, the entire development of the project was blocked by pending litigation and agitation of farmers of the village in which the project is situated. (iii). The opposite party faced major disruption in doing construction activity at site due to strikes by farmers whose lands were acquired by Noida Authority. This sudden outrage of agitation was completely unforeseen.

6. In the rejoinder, respective complainants have denied averments in the written statement.

7. Complainants have filed affidavit evidence in support of their respective submissions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the complainants has taken us through the consumer complaint as also the evidence adduced in support of the complaint. On perusal of allotment letters issued by the opposite party to the complainants it is clear that vide said allotment letter the complainants were allotted subject apartments in the development project Unitech Habitat at Greater Noida undertaken by the opposite party. From the above documents it is also clear that agreed consideration amount in CC No. 1310 of 2015 was ₹ 53,18,641/- , in CC No. 1131 of 2015 was ₹72,21,202/- and in CC No. 1312 of 2015 was ₹70,79,689/-. It is also clear from clause 4 (a) of the allotment letter that the opposite party had agreed to deliver possession of the subject apartments to the complainants within 26 to 40 months from the date of agreement. Complainants have categorically alleged in the complaints that against the consideration amount, substantial amount have been paid to the opposite party but even years after the expiry of stipulated date of delivery of possession, the opposite party has failed to deliver the possession.

9. The first question which needs determination is as to whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the above noted complaints?

10. Section 11 (1), 17 (1) (a) (i) and 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") provides for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the respective Foras and hierarchy to deal with the original consumer complaints. Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act provides that National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore.

11. Contention of learned counsel for the opposite party is that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, only the value of services plus compensation is to be taken into account and the interest claimed not being the compensation cannot be added to the consideration amount for the respective

apartments to inflate the pecuniary value of the relief.

12. I do not find merit in the above contention. In my considered view, the interest claimed by the apartment buyers is in the nature of compensation because had the complainants kept the amount paid to the opposite party in their bank, they obviously would have earned interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 State Commission 65 has interalia observed and held as under:

"However, the power to and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard and fast rule can be laid down, however a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure... …Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.

That compensation cannot be uniform and can best of illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher."

13. From the above, it would be seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that the interest on the consideration amount or the part thereof paid by the apartment buyer is in the nature of compensation. If we add the amount paid by the respective complainants against the consideration of the booked apartment and the interest claimed thereon in each and every case, the value of the relief sought is more than a crore. Therefore, I hold that the complaints are within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

14. As the opposite party has taken the defence of Force Majeure for failure to deliver the possession to respective complainants, the onus of proving the Force Majeure circumstance lies squarely on the opposite party.

15. As regards the plea that opposite party was prevented from undertaking construction activity on the subject plot because of farmers agitation whose lands were acquired by the Greater Noida

Authority no cogent evidence has been led by the opposite party. Therefore, said plea is liable to rejected.

16. So far as plea of the stay order issued by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 21.10.2011 is concerned, it may be noted that this plea was considered and rejected by the Coordinate Bench in CC No. 930 of 2015 Aakash Chopra Vs. Unitech Acacia Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 20.06.2016. Relevant observations of the Coordinate Bench are as under:

"As far as the judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 21.10.2011 is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the said judgment did not pertain to the land in question. He has produced on record a copy of the said judgment and submits that it relates only to the land allotted in Sector 91, 135 and 136. The learned counsel for the opposite party is unable to show to us how the aforesaid order dated 21.10.2011 pertains to the land on which the project, 'The Burgundy' was to be developed by it. Moreover, our attention has not been drawn to any direction of the High Court restraining the opposite party from carrying out development on the land in question. Hence, reliance upon the aforesaid order dated 21.10.2011 in Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 is wholly misplaced.

17. I find no reason to disagree with the judgment of the Coordinate Bench. Hence, the reliance placed by the opposite party on order of Hon'ble High Court dated 21.10.2011 in writ petition no. 37443 of 2011 is wholly misplaced.

18. In view of the discussion above, it is evident that opposite party has failed to prove the defence of Force Majeure. Undisputedly, the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of subject apartment to the respective complainants even years after expiry of stipulated date of delivery of possession without any reasonable excuse. Thus, I am of the view that opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service.

19. Counsel for the opposite party has raised a plea of limitation. It is contended that it is admitted case of the complainants that possession of subject apartments were to be delivered in year 2009 in CC No. 1310 of 2015, year 2011 in CC No. 1131 of 2015 and year 2010 in CC No. 1312 of 2015. As the complainants have filed the above noted consumer complaints more than four-six years after the date on which the possession was agreed to be delivered, in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is time barred and liable to be dismissed.

20. I do not find merit in the above noted plea. As per the builder buyer agreement the opposite party had promised to construct and deliver possession of the subject apartments to the complainants in consideration of they paying the agreed consideration amount. The opposite party till date has not offered possession of the subject apartments to the complainants and as also not refused to deliver possession. Thus, this is a clear case of continuing cause of action. Therefore, I am of the view that the complaints filed by the complainants is within limitation. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meerut Development Authority Vs. M K Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such a case buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non delivery of possession of the plot.

21. Now the question is as to what should be the amount of compensation? In this regard, counsel

for the opposite party has drawn my attention to clause 4 c (ii) of the Builder Buyer Agreement and submitted that as per the agreement between the parties, the opposite party company is liable to pay ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month as compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the apartments.

22. Learned counsel for the complainants on the contrary have claimed 18% interest on the amount paid.

23. Clause 4 c (ii ) and 4 (e) of the Builder-Buyer Agreement deals with the compensation to be awarded by the opposite party in the event of their failure to give possession by stipulated period. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under

4 c (ii)

"That the Company would pay charges @ Rs.5/- per s q. ft. per month for the period of delay in offering the delivery of the said apartment beyond the period indicated in clause 4

(a) (i), save and except as for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the Company and Force Majeure events. These charges would be adjusted at the time of Final Notice for possession."

4 (e)

"If for any reason the Company is not in a position to offer the Apartment altogether, the Company shall offer the allottee (s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with Simple Interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation on this account."

24. Counsel for the opposite party has referred to clause 4 c (ii) of the Agreement and submitted that this being the case of failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the subject apartments, clause 4 c ( ii) of the agreements are attracted and the complainants are entitled to compensation @ ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area. I do not find merit in the contention. On conjoint reading of the above noted clauses 4 c (ii) and 4 (e), it is evident that clause 4 c

(ii) of the Builder Buyer Agreement would be attracted only in a case in which the delay is for reasonable period and it has occurred because of cogent unfavourable circumstances. This clause would not apply in cases where builder after receiving substantial amount against the agreed consideration deliberately failed to take any steps for completing the construction. If such an argument is accepted, it would give handle to the developer to utilize the money paid by the consumers at a nominal cost of ₹5/- sq. ft. per month of the super area instead of borrowing money from the financial institutions / banks. In the instant case, opposite party has not shown any cogent circumstances or reason which prevented it to deliver possession within the stipulated period. Therefore, in my view, this case should be dealt with under clause 4 (e) of the subject Builder Buyer Agreement, which provides that if the opposite party is not in a

position to offer possession of the apartment to the allottee, opposite party shall refund the consideration amount received with 10% p.a. Thus, in my view, opposite party is liable to refund the money received from the complainants with 10% p.a. on the amount w.e.f. dates of respective payments of instalments..

25. In view of the discussion above, the complaint is allowed with following directions:

1. The Opposite party shall refund the entire amount of ₹48,18,649/- ( in CC No. 1310 of 2015), ₹66,52,816/- ( in CC No. 1131 of 2015) and ₹64,00,041/- ( in CC No. 1312 of 2015) to the respective complainants within six weeks from today alongwith compensation of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the realisation of the amount.

2. The Opposite party shall pay a sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainants in each case.

…………………..………..

(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................J

AJIT BHARIHOKE

PRESIDING MEMBER

Krishna Yadav v. Unitech Limited

Summary of Opinion: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Consumer Case No. 1310 of 2015

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

Opposite Party's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Krishna Yadav v. Unitech Limited

Comments