OMAXE LIMITED Vs. VARINDER KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (herein after, 'State Commission') U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 23 of 2012 and against the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (hereinafter, 'District Forum') U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 540 of 2011 which allowed the complaint.

(2.) Brief Facts of the case:

(3.) Preliminary objection of OP was with regard to territorial jurisdiction. OP denied the allegations that the possession cannot be offered for a long period and contended that the complainant never visited the site. It is also denied that request for refund of any amount was made. The delay in offering possession is compensable, per terms and conditions of Agreement, Exhibit C-1, so OP cannot be held liable for any relief.