State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sameer Singh Bagoria vs Rajul Infra (Chordia Infra Projects ... on 17 November, 2025
CC/02/2023
Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
COMPLAINT CASE NO:02/2023
Sameer Singh Bagoria
S/o Prem Chand Bagoria aged about 44 years R/O B-10, Gan-
pati Tower, Near Tata Indicom Office, Nursery Circle, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur.
...Complainant
-VERSUS-
1. Rajul Infra (Chordia Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.)
Having its Registered Office at Chordia House, Chordia Petrol
Pump, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Balvir Kumar Chorida
S/O Late Birdhi Chand Chordia R/O Sundaram, B-28, NU Lite
Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Aditya Chorida
S/O Balvir Kumar Chorida R/0 Sundaram, B-28, NU Lite Col-
ony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
4. PNB Housing Finance Limited
Having its office at 9th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22 Kasturba
Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
Before
Page 1 of 11
ALLOWED
CC/02/2023
Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
HON'BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. R.N. SARSWAT - MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
Present:
For Appellants: Mr. Jagpravesh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 To 3: Mr. S.N. Bohra, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Ajay Raj Tantiya, Advocate
Dated: 17/11/2025
Judgement
Authored by: Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat - Member
Complainant's Version The Complainant purchased Flat No. 1003, admeasuring 1742.91 sq. ft. (super built-up area), situated on the 10th Floor of the project titled "Rajul Augusta", developed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide Agreement to Sale dated 02.05.2016, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,01,13,564/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Four only). Out of the said amount, the Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,00,11,307/-, comprising of Rs.22,50,000/- from his own funds and Rs.85,00,000/- financed by Respondent No. 4 - PNB Housing Finance Ltd., out of which Rs.77,61,307/- has already been disbursed and paid to- wards the said flat.
The flat was booked by the Complainant solely for self-residential purposes and not for commercial or investment motives. Accordingly, the Complainant squarely falls within the definition of a "Consumer" under Section 2(7) read with Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondents, while launch- ing the said project, induced him to purchase the flat through advertise- ments, brochures, and oral assurances, promising world-class amenities such as a clubhouse, gymnasium, swimming pool, sewage treatment plant (STP), electrification, and landscaped development.
Page 2 of 11ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
As per the terms of the Agreement to Sale, possession of the flat was to be delivered on 16.02.2017, with a grace period of six months, end- ing on 16.08.2017. However, despite receipt of almost the entire sale con- sideration, the Respondents failed to complete the project within the stipu- lated time and did not deliver possession of the said flat to the Complain- ant. The Complainant has contended that even as on August 2022, upon his visit to the site, the project remained incomplete and lacked basic in- frastructure facilities.
It is further alleged that, despite repeated requests and communica- tions, the Respondents neither handed over possession of the flat nor re- funded the deposited amount. The Complainant also asserts that the Re- spondents have failed to obtain the Completion Certificate and Occu- pancy Certificate and have not registered the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), thereby committing acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Complainant submits that he has suffered severe financial loss, harassment, and mental agony due to the acts and omissions of the Re- spondents. He continues to repay the housing loan availed from Respond- ent No. 4 without being handed over possession of the flat, which has caused him considerable hardship.
In support of his case, the Complainant has relied upon the judg- ments of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Ashok Kumar Shivpuri vs. Ashok B. Chajjar (Revision Peti- tion No. 3152/2018) and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rehman Khan & Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6239/2019), wherein the delay in possession and deficiency in service by builders were held to be actionable under con- sumer law.
Aggrieved by the inaction and failure of the Respondents to deliver possession or refund the amount, the Complainant filed the present Con- sumer Complaint No. 02/2023 before this Hon'ble State Consumer Dis- putes Redressal Commission on 11.01.2023, seeking refund, compensa- tion, and other consequential reliefs.
Complainant's Prayer In the above facts and circumstances, the Complainant most re- spectfully prays that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to:
Page 3 of 11ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
1. Direct the Respondents to refund the entire sale consideration of Rs.100,11,307/- along with interest @18% per annum from 16.02.2017 (the date of assured possession) till realization.
2. Award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) for mental agony, harassment, and loss suffered by the Complainant.
3. Award litigation costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only).
4. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Documents produced by the Complainant The Complainant relies upon the following documents in support of the present Complaint:
1. Copy of the Registration form.
2. Copy of Agreement to Sale dated 12.05.2016 executed with Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
3. Copy of the Statement of Account of PNB Housing dated 22.05.2022.
4. Copy of the Statement of Account of Kotak Mahindra Bank from 01.01.2016 to 19.12.2022.
Respondent No. 1 to 3's version The Respondents have filed their written version contending that the Complainant himself is guilty of deficiency in service and breach of contractual obligations, having failed to make due payment of the outstand- ing amount under the Agreement to Sale. It is stated that no false assurance was ever given nor any fraud committed by the Respondents, and that the Complainant has failed to specify any date, instance, or circumstance when such alleged assurance was made.
The Respondents submit that repeated notices were issued to the Complainant on 18.11.2019, 09.10.2020, and 25.03.2021, calling upon him to clear an outstanding amount of Rs.7,43,524/- (inclusive of GST). Pur- suant to the notice dated 25.03.2021, Respondent No. 4 - PNB Housing Finance Ltd., prepared a Demand Draft bearing No. 313130 dated Page 4 of 11 ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
26.03.2021 for Rs.7,38,693/- in favor of Respondents No. 1 to 3, and handed it over to the Complainant for onward delivery. However, the Com- plainant merely sent a copy of the said draft through WhatsApp but did not hand over the original Demand Draft to the builder.
The Respondents state that relying upon the WhatsApp message confirming the said payment, they had even sent a draft of the final Sale Deed to the Complainant through e-mail dated 28.03.2021, but thereafter, the Complainant neither responded nor took any further steps for comple- tion of registration or possession formalities. The Complainant was later personally served with a Cancellation Notice dated 26.08.2021, which he refused to acknowledge, and the same was also sent to him through WhatsApp. This fact of service is admitted by the Complainant himself in his complaint. Accordingly, the Respondents submit that the cancellation of the Complainant's allotment was lawful and justified in light of his con- tinued default and non-cooperation.
The Respondents further assert that the alleged delay in handing over possession occurred solely due to the Complainant's own default in not paying the balance consideration and in failing to deliver the said De- mand Draft. The Respondents emphasize that other similarly situated flat owners, namely the allottees of Flat Nos. 1001, 402, 104, 401, and 1002, were issued possession letters on 29.09.2017 and have already taken pos- session of their respective flats without any grievance. The Complainant alone deliberately failed to take possession, despite the completion of the project.
It is also submitted that the Work Completion Certificate for the project was duly received on 25.05.2017, and all promised facilities and amenities, such as the Clubhouse, Gymnasium, Children's Play Area, and other common utilities, have been provided to all flat owners, who are pres- ently residing in their respective units. The project is fully completed and operational. The Complainant, however, defaulted in payment, failed to execute the Sale Deed, and never took possession of the flat offered to him.
With regard to compliance under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Respondents have submitted that the RERA Act came into force on 01.05.2017, whereas their project was com- pleted in May 2017, as evidenced by the Completion Certificate. There- fore, the project was not required to be registered under RERA, and there is no violation in this respect.
Page 5 of 11ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
It is further stated that the Complainant also defaulted in repayment of the loan availed from Respondent No. 4 (PNB Housing Finance Ltd.), as a result of which his loan account has been classified as a Non-Perform- ing Asset (NPA). Consequently, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have been initiated by Respondent No. 4, and a Notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act, dated 14.06.2022, has been issued and affixed on Flat No. 1003.
In view of the above, the Respondents submit that the entire com- plaint is false, frivolous, and devoid of merit, having been filed with ulte- rior motives to avoid payment of the lawful dues and to harass the Re- spondents. The Complainant, being himself in default, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The Respondents, therefore, pray that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
Documents produced by Respondent No. 1 to 3 The Respondent No. 1 to 3 relies upon the following documents in support of the present Complaint:
1. Copy of the Work Completion Certificate.
2. Copy of the Possession Letter to another flat owner dated 29.00.2017.
3. Copy of the Possession Letter to other flat owners dated 01.09.2017.
4. Copy of the Possession Letters to other flat owners dated 29.09.2017.
5. Copy of the Possession Letter to the Complainant dated 07.03.2018.
6. Copy of the Payment Intimation dated 18.11.2019.
7. Copy of the Cancellation Letter dated 25.05.2020.
8. Copy of the Payment Intimation dated 09.10.2020.
9. Copy of the Payment Intimation dated 25.03.2021.
10. Copy of the Demand Draft by the Complainant dated
27.03.2021.
11. Copy of the screenshot having Cancellation Letter dated 26.08.2021.
12. Copy of the Public Notice issued by Respondent No. 4.
13. Copy of the Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 dated 14.06.2022.
Page 6 of 11ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
Respondent No. 4's version The Respondent No. 4, PNB Housing Finance Ltd., has filed its version contending that the contentions and allegations made by the Com- plainant against this Respondent are wholly false, baseless, untenable, ma- licious, and made with ulterior motive to harass the answering Respondent and to delay the resolution of the matter relating to the outstanding dues payable by the Complainant.
It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 had sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lakh only) to the Complainant vide Sanction Letter dated 06.05.2016. In pursuance thereof, the parties exe- cuted a Loan Agreement dated 31.01.2017, and the loan amount was dis- bursed in accordance with the terms of the said agreement as well as the Tripartite Agreement executed among the Complainant, the builder (Re- spondents No. 1 to 3), and this Respondent.
The answering Respondent states that the Complainant defaulted in repayment of loan instalments from 26.10.2020 onwards, which is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement and the Loan Agreement. Due to continued default, the Complainant's loan ac- count has been classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with applicable banking regulations, and recovery proceedings have been initiated in accordance with law.
Reiterating and adopting the submissions made by Respondents No. 1 to 3, the answering Respondent submits that there has been no defi- ciency in service on its part and that the default lies solely with the Com- plainant, who has failed to meet his contractual and financial obligations. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 prays that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs as being frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit.
Documents produced by Respondent No. 4The Respondent No. 4 relies upon the following documents in sup- port of the present Complaint:
1. Copy of the Power of Attorney.
2. Copy of the Sanction Letter.Page 7 of 11
ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
3. Copy of the Loan Documents
4. Copy of the Statement of Loan Account.
Points for determination Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, and submis- sions made by both parties, the following points arise for determination before this Hon'ble Commission:
1. Whether Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in ser-
vice and indulged in unfair trade practice by failing to deliver possession of Flat No. 1003 to the Complainant despite receiving substantial payment?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to refund of the advance amount of Rs.22,50,000/- paid towards the purchase of the said flat along with interest?
3. Whether the project "Rajul Augusta" was completed in accordance with law and whether the Work Completion Certificate produced by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is authentic and valid?
4. Whether Respondent No. 4 (PNB Housing Finance Ltd.) is liable for any deficiency in service or whether the default in repayment of the loan lies with the Complainant himself?
5. Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses?
6. What will be the fate of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, presented on 19.03.2024, and whether the same is to be decided along with this final judg- ment?
7. What order and relief, if any, should be granted to the Complain- ant in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Findings of the Commission After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and upon perusal of the record and documents available, this Commission rec- ords its determinations as under:
1. From the record, it is undisputed that the Complainant had paid an advance booking amount of Rs.22,50,000/- to Re-
spondent Nos. 1 to 3 towards Flat No. 1003 in the project Page 8 of 11 ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
"Rajul Augusta." It is also admitted that despite receipt of this substantial amount, possession of the flat was never de- livered to the Complainant. The Respondents' plea that pos- session was duly offered is unsupported by any acknowl- edgment or receipt signed by the Complainant.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. vs. Tre- vor D'Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442, wherein it was held that failure to deliver possession within the stipulated time constitutes clear deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The same principle applies squarely here.
2. The so-called possession letters produced by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not bear any authenticated acknowledgment from the Complainant, which renders them unreliable. Hence, the Respondents' contention that possession was duly tendered is rejected.
3. The Work Completion Certificate produced by the Re-
spondents has been issued not by any competent govern- ment authority but by a private architect. In absence of a certificate issued by a statutory agency (such as the Devel- opment Authority or Municipal Body), the said certificate cannot be accepted as valid proof of completion. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble NCDRC in Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estate Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1118, held that mere private certification without official completion certificate does not absolve a builder from liability to de- liver possession or refund consideration.
4. This Commission notes that there is no credible document on record showing that the Complainant demanded refund of the booking amount prior to filing this complaint. There- fore, interest is awarded from the date of filing of the com- plaint, 11.01.2023, rather than from the date of payment. This is in consonance with the ruling of the Hon'ble Su- preme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs. D.S. Dhanda, (2019) 18 SCC 357, which emphasized that inter- est on refund should be fair, reasonable, and not punitive when the claim of refund is delayed or made belatedly.Page 9 of 11
ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
5. Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice for retaining the Complainant's advance money without delivering posses- sion or valid justification. Their conduct falls squarely within the definition of deficiency as held in LDA vs. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that failure to discharge contractual obli- gations in the manner expected of a reasonable builder amount to deficiency in service.
6. With respect to Respondent No. 4 (PNB Housing Finance Ltd.), this Commission finds no deficiency in service. The relationship between the Complainant and Respondent No. 4 is governed by a loan agreement, which operates inde- pendently from the builder-buyer contract. The Complain- ant's default in repayment cannot be attributed to Respond- ent No. 4. Hence, the complaint discloses no cause of action against Respondent No. 4. The complaint is therefore dis- missed against Respondent No. 4, though this will not re- strain Respondent No. 4 from pursuing lawful recovery of its dues.
This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble NCDRC in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricul- tural Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121, which clarified that a financier cannot be held liable for deficiency when the consumer's grievance lies against the builder.
7. As regards the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dated 19.03.2024, this Commission holds that the issues raised therein are directly linked with the merits of this case and have now been addressed through final adjudication. Hence, the said application is disposed of along with this judgment.
8. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Complainant is en-
titled to refund of Rs.22,50,000/- with simple interest @6% per annum from 11.01.2023 till realization, along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.Page 10 of 11
ALLOWED CC/02/2023 Sameer Singh Bagoria Vs Rajul Infra & Ors.
Order In view of the above findings, this Hon'ble Commission partly al- lows the complaint in the following terms:
1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to refund the advance booking amount of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakh Fifty Thou-
sand only) to the Complainant along with interest @6% per annum from 11.01.2023 (the date of filing of the complaint) till the date of payment.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Ru- pees Twenty-Five Thousand only) towards compensation for men- tal agony and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the Complainant.
3. The complaint against Respondent No. 4 - PNB Housing Finance Ltd. is dismissed, as no deficiency in service is made out against it. Respondent No. 4 shall, however, be free to pursue its legal reme- dies for recovery of its loan dues against the Complainant, as per- missible under law.
4. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dated 19.03.2024 stands disposed of in terms of this judgment.
5. Compliance of this order shall be made within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum thereafter until re- alization.
Complaint partly allowed accordingly.
No order as to costs beyond those specified above.
(Arun Kumar Agarwal) (Ram Niwas Sarswat)
Member (Judicial) Member (Non-Judicial)
Page 11 of 11
ALLOWED