State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Virat Tiwari & Ors. vs Krrish Shalimar Project Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 27 February, 2026
CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 19.01.2021
Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025
Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
COMPLAINT NO. 12/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MR. VIRAT TIWARI
S/O. DR. RAM SHANKAR TIWARI,
2. MR. ADTNU TIWARI
S/O. DR. RAM SHANKAR TIWARI,
3. MS. VANDANA TIWARI
W/O. DR. RAM SHANKAR TIWARI,
ALL RESIDENTS OF:
1402, TOWER D, IBIZA TOWN,
SHIVA DURGA VIHAR, SECTOR-39,
FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121010.
(Through: Bhargavan & Co., Advocate)
...Complainants
VERSUS
1. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE: 406, 4TH FLOOR,
ELEGANCE TOWER,
8, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110025.
2. NAVDEEP SHARMA
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 16
CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
IBIZA TOWN, OPP. GATE NO. 2, SURAJKUND MELA GROUND,
SURAJKUND-BADKHAL ROAD, SECTOR-39, FARIDABAD.
3. MR. RAJESH KATYAL,
(DIRECTOR) KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
202, ELEGANCE TOWER,
8, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110025.
4. MR. MASOOD AHMAD
(DIRECTOR)
11TH FLOOR, TITANIUM,
SHALIMAR CORPORATE PARK,
VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMATI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW-226010.
5. MR. KUNAL SETH (DIRECTOR),
(DIRECTOR)
11TH FLOOR, TITANIUM,
SHALIMAR CORPORATE PARK,
VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMATI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW-226010.
6. SHALIMAR CORPORATE LTD.,
11TH FLOOR, TITANIUM,
SHALIMAR CORPORATE PARK,
VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMATI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW-226010
7. MR. KHALID MASOOD,
(DIRECTOR)
11TH FLOOR, TITANIUM,
SHALIMAR CORPORATE PARK,
VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMATI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW-226010.
(Through: Mr. Prashant Katara, Advocate)
...Opposite Parties
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 16
CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. K.N. Bhargavan, Counsel for the Complainants
Mr. Shivam Gupta, Counsel for the Opposite Parties
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties and have prayed for the following relief :-
1. Grant a compensation of Rs. 90,06,447 (Rupees Ninety Lacs Six Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Seven only) towards damages like shortage of flat area, delay in possession of flat, not providing value added services as per agreement, harassment, mental agony, broken flooring of flat, use of low quality materials etc. to be paid by respondents/opposite parties to the complainants with interest.
2. Grant a compensation Rs. 25,27,695/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five only) towards extra interest paid by complainants to the home loan due to the delay in possession of flat by the respondents to the complainants to be paid by the respondents to the complainants with interest.
3. Pass such other order/relief/s as the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts circumstances of the case.
ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants booked a flat having a super area of 2390 sq. ft. in the project namely "IBIZA Township" of the Opposite Parties, situated in Sector-39, Faridabad, Haryana. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties allotted Flat No. D- 1402 in Tower-D to the Complainants for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,76,08,722/-, out of which Rs.90,00,000/- was towards the cost of the flat and Rs.86,00,000/- was charged towards additional luxury/value-added services in the said project. An Agreement dated 12.09.2013 was executed between the parties. As per Clause 3.1 of the said Agreement, the Opposite Parties were required to hand over possession of the said flat within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction or execution of the Agreement or from the date of obtaining all licences and approvals for commencement of construction, whichever was later. However, the Opposite Parties handed over possession of the flat on 27.10.2018 in an imperfect condition, after a delay of approximately 25 months from the promised date of possession. The Complainants were compelled to pay huge interest of Rs.25,00,000/- to ICICI Bank towards the housing loan due to the said delay of 25 months on the part of the Opposite Parties handing over the possession. Therefore, the Complainants are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the loss suffered by the Complainants.
3. Further, the Opposite Parties had promised two joined balconies the Complainants noticed that as per the brochure and the Agreement, however, the balconies were provided separately in actual construction. Due to this deviation, the area was reduced by approximately 90 sq. ft., for which the Opposite Parties are also liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,07,050/- to the Complainants as per the said Agreement. Similarly, the Opposite Parties used ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
sub-standard and inferior quality materials in the flat, including the balcony railing with cheap quality mild steel instead of the promised standard material. Further, the Opposite Parties also failed to provide one bathtub, as assured, on account of which the Complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-.
4. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have been charging maintenance through another agency namely Colliers International, with effect from March 2020, without obtaining the Occupation Certificate, which is illegal and arbitrary. The Complainants also alleged that the Opposite Parties have paid only 50% of the compensation payable to the Complainants as per Clause 3.3 of the said Agreement.
5. Additionally, the Opposite Parties had assured the Complainants various amenities such as a long covered swimming pool, outdoor cafe, laundry services, table tennis and badminton courts, home automation and round-the- clock concierge services as per the brochure. However, the Opposite Parties also failed to provide said amenities except for a swimming pool, which is uncovered and comparatively smaller in size. Aggrieved by the acts and omissions of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants served a legal notice dated 20.10.2010 upon the Opposite Parties demanding compensation but was of no avail.
6. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the present complaint and raised preliminary objections. The counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 submitted that the present complaint is barred by limitation as possession of the said flat was handed over to the Complainants on 27.10.2018, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 19.01.2021, which is beyond the prescribed period of two years from the date of cause of action. He further submitted ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
that possession of the flat was offered for fit-out purposes only and habitation was expressly prohibited; however, the Complainants misused the property by using the same for habitation purposes. He also submitted that the Complainants did not raise any grievance till the year 2021 after taking possession. Moreover, the Opposite Party No. 1 paid delayed compensation as a gesture of goodwill to the Complainants as per the agreed terms of the Agreement.
7. The counsel for the Opposite Party no.1 further submitted that the Opposite Parties sent several reminders to the Complainants for execution of the conveyance deed but the Complainants failed to come forward for execution of the same. He also submitted that the allegations of deficiency raised by the Complainants are based on the brochure, whereas the record clearly shows that a Builder Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties, which supersedes the brochure. Lastly, he submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1, as possession was duly handed over as per the Agreement and the Complainants have been residing in the said flat ever since and the Opposite Party no.1 is not responsible for any wear and tear to the flat after taking possession.
8. During the course of proceedings, notice was issued to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 on 28.01.2021; however, the same remained unserved. Consequently, fresh notice was issued to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 on 24.05.2024 and the Complainants were directed to file an affidavit qua proof of service. Accordingly, the Complainants filed an affidavit of service, as per which Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 stood duly served. However, Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 failed to file their written statement within the stipulated period. Since ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 did not file the written statement within the prescribed time, the averments made against them remain unrebutted.
9. The Complainants have filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party no.1. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
10.The Complainants have filed their written arguments and reiterated the allegations made in the present complaint.
11. The Opposite Party No. 1 has filed its written arguments and has denied the allegations made in the present complaint.
12. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 have also filed their written arguments and submitted that the agreement was executed between the Complainants and the Opposite Party No. 1; therefore, any claim arising out of the said agreement, if any, lies only against Opposite Party No. 1. The counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 further submitted that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 are/were directors or office-bearers of the Opposite Party No. 1 as well as of a third-party company and that no privity of contract exists between them and the Complainants. He further submitted that the agreement does not provide for any personal liability of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present complaint be dismissed on the ground of maintainability for want of any cause of action against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7.
13. We have perused the material available before us and heard the counsels for both the parties.
14. The first question for consideration before us is whether the Complainant has any cause of action to approach this Commission against Opposite ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Party Nos. 2 to 7. It is imperative to refer to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it is provided as under: -
"(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
15. Analysis of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen.
16. However, it is equally settled that where the directors or office-bearers are actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and exercise control over its functioning; therefore, they cannot escape liability merely by taking the submission of absence of privity of contract. In the present case, Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 were the directors/office-bearers of Opposite Party No.1 and were responsible for the management, administration and execution of the project. As a result, the acts and omissions arose during their tenure and under their supervision. Therefore, their liability cannot be ruled out at ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
this stage. Consequently, we are of the view that the Complainants are within their right to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party no.2 to 7 before this commission.
17. The second issue to be adjudicated is whether the present complaint filed by the Complainants barred by limitation.
18. The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the present complaint is time-barred as the Complainants had already taken possession in the year 2018 and the present complaint was filed in the year 2021, which is beyond the prescribed period of two years. It is imperative to refer to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it is provided as under: -
"(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
19. Analysis of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the present case, it is clear from the record that Opposite Parties ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
offered possession only for fit-outs and the conveyance deed has not been executed in favour of the Complainants till date. Therefore, it is evident that actual possession has not been handed over to the Complainants till date.
20. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors.
Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts."
21. Applying the above settled law, it is clear that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to the Complainants. The Complainants are within their right to file the present complaint before this commission.
22. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Parties is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the Opposite Party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation."
23. The above dicta reflects that any fault, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the nature or manner of performance undertaken by a developer as part of a contractual obligation is considered a deficiency in service.
24. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Clause 3.1 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure-D), which is reproduced as hereunder:
ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
"....the Seller proposes to offer to hand over the possession of the Apartment to the Purchasers) within a period of 36 (thirty six months (with a grace period of 9 (nine) months from the date of commencement of construction or execution of this Agreement or date of obtaining all licenses or approvals for commencement of construction, whichever is later, subject to Force Majcure...."
25. It reflects that the Opposite Parties were required to hand over possession of the said flat within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of construction or execution of the Agreement or from the date of obtaining all licenses or approvals for commencement of construction, whichever was later. However, we fail to find on record the date of commencement of construction or the date of approval for commencement of construction. Therefore, the date of execution of the Agreement i.e, 12.09.2013 is taken for computing the period for handing over possession of the said flat. Accordingly, the stipulated period for handing over possession expired on 12.09.2016 and 12.06.2017 including the grace period. However, the Opposite Parties vide provisional possession letter dated 28.08.2018 offered possession only for fit-outs after an inordinate delay of more than one year from the promised date and the Conveyance Deed has not been executed till date. Moreover, we fail to find anything on record to show that the delay was caused due to any force majeure conditions. Therefore, it is clear that the Opposite Parties failed to hand over possession of the said flat within the prescribed period.
26. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 15.10.2020 called upon the Complainants for execution of the ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Conveyance Deed. It is evident from the contents of the said letter that the Opposite Parties obtained the Occupation Certificate for the tower in which the Complainants' flat is located on 14.01.2020. Therefore, actual possession of the said flat could have been handed over only on or after 14.01.2020.
27. Moreover, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties were not entitled to adjust maintenance charges as actual and lawful possession had not been handed over to the Complainant, inasmuch as the Conveyance Deed has not been executed till date. Further, it cannot be denied that the Complainant has been deprived of his legal right to occupy and reside in the said flat. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay delayed compensation in terms of the Agreement till the date of execution of the Conveyance Deed, after adjustment of an amount of Rs.2,50,950/- which is already paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainants towards delayed compensation.
28. Furthermore, the Complainant alleged that he had booked a flat having a super area of 2390 sq. ft. However, upon inspection of the flat by his licensed architect namely Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, it was found that there was a shortfall of approximately 90 sq. ft. On perusal of the record, it is noted that both the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties had the flat measured through their respective architects. The architect engaged by the Complainant submitted a detailed report showing a shortfall of 87.30 sq. ft., supported by specifications and clear observations. On the other hand, the report filed by the architect of the Opposite Parties merely mentions measurements without any detailed explanation; therefore, lacks clarity. Hence, we are of the considered view that the report submitted on behalf of the Complainant is more reliable. As a result, it is clear that the Opposite Parties delivered an area short by 87.30 sq. ft., for which an excess amount of Rs.5,36,895/- (at ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026 MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
the basic rate of Rs.6,150/- per sq. ft.) has been charged from the Complainant as per the agreed payment plan.
29. The Complainant further submitted that he was compelled to pay interest amounting to Rs.25,27,695/- to ICICI Bank towards the housing loan due to the delay in handing over possession by the Opposite Parties. However, on perusal of the record, it is noted that the Agreement dated 12.09.2013 executed between the parties specifically contains Clause 3.3, which provides for delayed compensation and governs the liability of the Opposite Parties in case of delay. Since the rights and liabilities of both parties are regulated by the contractual terms, no separate or additional compensation can be granted to the Complainant with respect to delayed possession on account of interest paid to the bank. Moreover, there is no material on record to show any privity of contract between the Opposite Parties and the lending bank. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is not entitled to the said relief.
30. The Complainant further alleged that he is also entitled to Rs.4,00,000/-
towards damages on account of broken flooring and Rs.1,00,000/- for poor quality of railing and non-provision of a bathtub in one bathroom, etc. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the Complainant has been residing in the said flat since 2019. Any wear and tear arising due to occupation since 2019 cannot be attributed to the Opposite Parties. However, it cannot be denied that, as per the specifications of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were required to provide stainless steel railing in the balcony and a bathtub in one bathroom, which admittedly were not provided.
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
31. Consequently, we hold the Opposite Parties deficient in service with respect to the inordinate delay in handing over possession without adequate delayed compensation as well as on account of the deficiencies in the said flat.
32. Keeping in view the fact s and circumstances of the present case, we direct the Opposite Parties to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the Complainants within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.
33. In addition to the aforesaid, and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay the following amounts to the Complainants a sum of:
A. Delay compensation as per Clause 3.3 of the Agreement, from 12.06.2017 till the date of execution of the conveyance deed, after adjusting the amount of Rs.2,50,950/- already paid towards delayed possession.
B. Rs. 5,36,895/- charged by the Opposite Parties towards shortfall in super area;
C. Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for shortcomings in the flat, mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant;
D. Litigation costs to the extent of Rs.50,000/-;
34. If the Opposite Party fails to comply with the directions given in paragraph 32 & 33 of this judgment, the Complainants may approach this Commission under section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
35. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 16 CC/12/2021 DOD: 27.02.2026
MR. VIRAT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. KRRISH SHALIMAR PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
36. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
37. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
27.02.2026 LR-ZA ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 16