Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Tdi Infrastructure Ltd vs National Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CWP-31725-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-29.10.2025
M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner - M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited assails order dated 11.3.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1 - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the NCDRC"), whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 9.1.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, has been dismissed.
2. The matter arises out of a consumer complaint instituted by respondent No.3
- Supreet Kaur and respondent No.4 - Davinder Pal Singh, wherein the complainants asserted that they had applied for allotment of a residential independent floor having an area of 1255 square feet for a total consideration of Rs.39,04,990/-, which was allotted to them by the petitioner and accordingly a Floor Buyer Agreement (Annexure P-3) was executed between PANKAJ KAKKAR 2025.11.04 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-31725-2025 (O&M) (2) the parties on 24.11.2014. The complainants/respondents No.3 & 4 deposited a total sum of Rs.35,28,345/- by way of different cheques during the period 2013-2015. The petitioner sent a letter dated 5.4.2016 (Annexure P-5) offering possession to the complainants and pursuant thereto when the complainant visited the site it was found that the apartment to be allotted was incomplete and lot of development/construction work was yet to be executed so as to make the apartments livable. The complainants thereafter served a legal notice in this regard to the petitioner, but to no avail and consequently they initially filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali, but later withdrew the same and filed a fresh complaint (Annexure P-7) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner opposed the said complaint primarily on the ground that the complainants were still in arrears of Rs.6,39,562/- on the date of offer of possession and had earlier also not made timely payments. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, while considering the evidence on record, held that although the offer of possession had been made by the petitioner to the complainants on 5.4.2016, but the construction work was not complete and infact as on the date of offer of possession, the petitioner did not even have the completion/occupation certificate as was required to have been issued by a competent authority. Such certificate was infact issued later i.e. on 16.5.2016. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, while accepting the complaint filed by the complainants, issued the following directions to the opposite party:
"i) to deliver actual physical possession of the apartment/flat, complete in all respects, to the complainants along with all the promised PANKAJ KAKKAR 2025.11.04 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-31725-2025 (O&M) (3) facilities and the Completion and Occupation Certificates obtained from the concerned competent authorities within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order subject to the payment of balance outstanding amount towards the price of the apartment/flat without any interest or penal interest by the complainants;
ii) to execute the sale/conveyance deed and get the same registered in the name of the complainants after handing over the actual physical possession of the apartment/flat in question as per direction (i) above within a period of two months and the expenses for the same shall be borne by the complainants;
iii) to pay pre-EMI interest to the complainants paid by them to opposite party No.2-DHFL on account of pre-EMI interest for a period of 24 months;
iv) to pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs.35,28,345/- at the rate of 12% per annum on account of delayed possession with effect from May 2018 till the date of actual delivery of possession of the apartment/flat in question to the complainants.
v) not to charge Club Membership Charges from the complainants; and
vi) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation, for mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainants, including litigation costs."
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the NCDRC, which did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of default on the part of the petitioner as had been recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The relevant extract from order passed by the NCDRC is reproduced herein-under:
"9. From the record, it is manifest that respondent No. 1 had paid Rs.30,30,782/-timely towards the apartment/flat and the final instalment of Rs.5,52,545/- was due only on offer of possession. Appellant's argument that the respondent No.1 lacked funds is not PANKAJ KAKKAR 2025.11.04 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-31725-2025 (O&M) (4) relevant since it is not material whether the said payment was through loan or from his own savings or a combination of both. It is not in dispute that the offer of possession dated 05.04.2016 preceded the obtaining of the Occupancy Certificate dated 11.05.2016. It is also not disputed that the Club Building was not ready on the date of offer of possession and its completion certificate was obtained by the appellant on 06.12.2017. The non-payment of the final instalment by respondent No.1 on the ground that the project and the flat in question was not complete cannot be construed to be a default in payment as per the Payment Plan since no Completion Certificate has been brought on record by the appellant. No evidence has also been brought on record to prove that delay in remittance of loan amount was deliberate or with the intention to speculate in the property as alleged. In view of the foregoing facts, respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted for not making the payment of the final instalment which was to be paid when legal possession was offered. The imposition of holding charges by the appellant is also not considered to be valid for the reason that the project was incomplete, and the levy charge cannot be justified for that reason. The Club Membership levied is also not tenable on the ground that its membership itself was not mandatory. The Club building was admittedly not ready till 06.12.2017 when its completion certificate was obtained and until then facilities were offered in another Club. As regards the direction of the State Commission to the appellant to pay pre-EMI interest to the complainants paid by them to respondent No.2 (DHFL) for 24 months, the same cannot be found fault with as it was an essential part of the Agreement under the Payment Plan C opted for by respondent No. 1. The reliance of the appellant on Rajni Goyal (supra) cannot be accepted since respondent No. 1 paid the instalment once the loan was sanctioned and no mala fide in causing any delay has been established by the appellant. The findings of the State Commission with respect to these issues do not therefore warrant any interference by this Commission. The appellant is held to be in default of contractual obligations amounting to deficiency in service under the Act."
PANKAJ KAKKAR 2025.11.04 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-31725-2025 (O&M) (5)
4. However, the relief as granted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh was partly modified by the NCDRC and the following directions were issued:
"12. For the foregoing reasons, the first appeal is partly allowed and the orders of the State Commission are slightly modified and the appellant/respondent is directed to:
(i) deliver legal physical possession of the apartment/flat, complete in all respects, to the complainants along with all the promised facilities and the Completion and Occupation Certificates obtained from the concerned competent authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order subject to the payment of balance outstanding amount towards the price of the apartment/flat without charging any interest or penal interest;
(ii) execute the sale/conveyance deed and get the same registered in the name of the respondent/complainant after handing over the legal physical possession of the apartment/flat in question as per direction (i) above within a period of three months the expenses for which shall be borne by the complainants;
(iii) pay pre-EMI interest to the complainants paid by them to respondent/opposite party No. 2 (DHFL) on account of pre-
EMI interest for a period of 24 months;
(iv) pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs 30,30,782/- at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 20.12.2017 till the date of actual delivery of possession of the apartment/flat in question;
(v) not charge Club Membership Charges from the respondent/complainant; and
(vi) pay the respondent/ complainant Rs 25,000/- as litigation costs."
PANKAJ KAKKAR 2025.11.04 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-31725-2025 (O&M) (6)
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that since the formal occupation certificate had been issued shortly after the letter of offer of possession as had been made by the petitioner, there was no justification in penalizing the petitioner in any manner as has been done by the NCDRC and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and that the order as passed by the NCDRC will seriously prejudice the petitioner as there would be a large number of such frivolous complaints made by the allottees.
6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through the impugned orders passed by the NCDRC as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.
7. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances particularly the fact that the floors/apartments were not complete and infact occupancy/completion certificate had also not been issued in respect of the floor in question when offer of possession had been extended by the petitioner to the complainants, we do not find any infirmity in the findings as recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and as upheld by the NCDRC. The relief as granted by the NCDRC also does not warrant any interference.
8. The writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to assail an order passed by the NCDRC in appeal can only be invoked in case there is some legal infirmity or perversity in the findings as recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh or the NCDRC in appeal. However, the impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid relief PANKAJ KAKKAR 2025.11.04 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-31725-2025 (O&M) (7) No.IV as granted by the NCDRC is rather vague as the petitioner would be burdened with interest in case the allottee himself chooses to delay taking over the possession, but this Court is not impressed with the said argument inasmuch the petitioner has not issued any letter offering possession subsequent to issuance of occupancy certificate. Needless to mention, as and when any offer is made, the petitioner would be required to give sufficiently reasonable time to the complainant to take the possession and it is only in case the complainant himself does not come forward to take possession within a sufficiently reasonable period that the petitioner may have a grievance, but such like eventuality not having arisen as of now, this Court is not inclined to accept any such contention made by the petitioner in this regard.
8. The instant petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
JUDGE
29.10.2025 ( RAMESH KUMARI )
Pankaj JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2025.11.04 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh