State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Randeep Singh Sisodia vs M/S Bptp Resort Private Limited, on 15 January, 2026
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Consumer Complaint No. : 106 of 2024
Date of Institution : 26.11.2024
Date of Decision : 15.01.2026
Sh. Randeep Singh Sisodia son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, aged about 56 years,
presently residing at House No.743, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. M/s BPTP Resort Private Limited, Registered office: OT-14, 3rd Floor,
Next Door, Parklands, Sector-76, Faridabad (Haryana)-121004 through
its Managing Director
2. M/s BPTP Resort Private Limited, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught
Circus, New Delhi 110001 through its Director.
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant Sh. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the opposite parties PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties, through advertisements and assurances, launched a residential project namely "THE RESORT" at BPTP Parklands, Sector-75, Faridabad, Haryana, on the basis of which the complainant, who was residing in a rented accommodation and intended to purchase a flat for his personal use, booked a residential unit after being assured that all approvals were in place and possession would be delivered within 36 months with a grace period of 2 6 months. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.6,07,500/- on 13.12.2007 (Annexure C-1), pursuant to which Flat No. F-1202 on the 12th Floor of Tower-F admeasuring 1875 sq. ft. super area was allotted vide allotment letter dated 17.03.2008 (Annexure C-2), followed by execution of the Flat Buyer's Agreement dated 20.03.2008 fixing the basic sale price at Rs.
40,50,000/- and stipulating possession by 20.09.2011 (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, under the directions of the opposite parties, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.59,53,922/- between 2007 and 2014, supported by payment receipts (Annexures C-4 to C-9) and also availed a housing loan of Rs.37,71,000/- from HDFC Bank pursuant to a Tripartite Agreement dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure C-10), towards which, he has till date paid Rs.69,78,900/- as principal and interest duly evidenced by yearly certificates (Annexures C-11 to C-24), yet despite having paid approximately Rs.90,00,000/- in total and continuing to service the loan, the complainant was not handed over possession within the agreed time; instead, the opposite parties issued an offer of possession dated 13.09.2013 unilaterally increasing the super area to 2140 sq. ft. and raising additional demands (Annexure C-25), followed by an unexplained demand dated 21.07.2014 including maintenance charges without any maintenance agreement (Annexure C-26).
2] Upon repeated requests, inspection was permitted on 09.01.2015 as intimated vide email dated 06.01.2015, during which the flat was found incomplete and recorded in the joint inspection report (Annexures C-27 & C-28), notwithstanding which the opposite parties continued to issue arbitrary and escalating demand notices dated 21.07.2014, 17.03.2015, 11.07.2016, 22.02.2017 and 16.04.2018 (Annexures C-29 to C-
32), later reducing the same themselves, clearly allegedly establishing their baseless nature; despite repeated written and electronic communications by the complainant (Annexures C-33 & C-34) and a legal notice dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure C-35), no possession or compensation was granted and though the complainant had earlier filed Case No.2751 of 2023 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file before the Consumer Forum vide order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure 3 C-36) and as possession has still not been delivered, the cause of action continues, conferring territorial jurisdiction upon this Hon'ble Commission at Chandigarh.
3] The complainant, in the present complaint, has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to hand over complete lawful possession with completion/occupation certificates, pay interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amount for delay, ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, ₹1,00,000/- as litigation costs and any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.
4] On the other hand, in their written version/reply filed to the complaint, the opposite parties, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with respect to execution of Flat Buyer's Agreement dated 20.03.2008, availing of loan from HDFC Bank by the complainant for purchasing the said flat; execution of Tripartite Agreement dated 23.12.2008, has pleaded raised certain preliminary objection and that the complainant has concealed the factum of causing prolonged delay and termination/cancellation of the flat and default in making payment of outstanding dues qua the booked flat. It has further been pleaded that the opposite parties raised various demand letters towards payments of the booked flat vide letters/reminders, dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure R-6), 01.08.2013, 15.10.2013, 07.01.2014, 18.02.2014, 14.09.2020, 31.10.2020 and 11.01.2021 (Annexure R-7 Colly.). It has further been pleaded that after completion of the unit in all respect, the opposite parties issued letter dated 13.09.2013 to the complainant offering possession and fit out of the booked flat (Annexure R-8). It has further been pleaded that subsequently, vide letter dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure R-9), the opposite parties informed the complainant qua the VAT liability accruing on him to the tune of ₹58,701/- in the light of the new scheme launched by the Government of Haryana but despite that, the complainant defaulted in making payment of the outstanding VAT dues, which remained unpaid till date. It has further been pleaded that the opposite parties were constrained to issue final demand notice dated 15.03.2021, granting last and final opportunity to the complainant to make payment of the outstanding dues of ₹4,61,880/- within 15 days from the 4 date of notice, failing which, the allotment would be treated as terminated/cancelled.
5] It has further been pleaded that the complainant did not pay the outstanding amount of ₹4,61,880/- (₹3,57,410.00 as outstanding dues for holding charges + outstanding interest of ₹45,769.00 + outstanding VAT charges of ₹58,710.00) resulting into termination/cancellation of allotment of his flat in terms of final demand notice dated 15.03.2021. It has further been pleaded that it is evident beyond any reasonable doubt that the complainant had been a defaulter since the beginning, which led to termination/cancellation of his allotted flat. It has further been pleaded that the complainant cannot be permitted to abuse the due process of law by filing a frivolous and vexatious consumer complaint, which is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6] The complainant filed replication wherein he reiterated the averments made in the complaint and repudiated those as stated in the written version/reply of the opposite parties.
7] The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. 8] Before proceeding further, it is observed that the opposite parties have moved Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 2025 seeking permission to place on record a copy of the Occupation Certificate dated 09.06.2014 as Annexure-A and details of payments as Annexure-B. Having perused the contents of the application and the documents sought to be brought on record, this Commission is of the considered view that the said documents are relevant and necessary for the proper and effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the present consumer complaint, as the Occupation Certificate pertains to the issue of completion and readiness of the project, while the details of payments are material for determining the financial aspects and liabilities of the parties. It is well settled that procedural technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice and no prejudice would be caused to the complainant by taking the said documents on record as the complainant had the complete liberty to rebut the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application No.257 of 2025 is allowed and the Occupation Certificate dated 5 09.06.2014, Annexure-A and the details of payments, Annexure-B, are taken on record subject to just exceptions of the case, for consideration. 9] The complainant has also filed a Miscellaneous Application bearing No.411 of 2025 for placing on record Declaration of Declaration (Form A) as Annexure-A depicting the details of Towers and breakup of the charges as Annexure-B payable by him. Upon perusal of the application and the documents annexed therewith, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the said documents are relevant and material for the just and effective adjudication of the present consumer complaint, as they have a direct bearing on the nature of the project, configuration of towers and the financial obligations allegedly fastened upon the complainant. No serious prejudice would be caused to the opposite parties by taking the said documents on record. In the interest of justice and for proper appreciation of the issues involved, Miscellaneous Application No.411 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and the Declaration (Form-A) is taken on record as Annexure-A and the break-up of charges payable by the complainant is taken on record as Annexure-B, subject to all just exceptions for consideration. 10] We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documentary evidence on record and the written arguments very carefully.
Observations of this Commission:-
11] At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that no preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction or limitation has been raised by the opposite parties in their written reply and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be decided on merits. It is an admitted position that the complainant booked Flat No. F-1202 on the 12th Floor of Tower-F in the project "The Resort" developed by the opposite parties and that a Flat Buyer's Agreement dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure R-3) was executed between the parties, wherein possession was to be delivered within 36 months with a grace period of six months, i.e. on or before 20.09.2011. However, it has been disputed by the complainant that though he has paid substantial amount of Rs.59,53,922/- for the period from 13.12.2007 to 01.04.2014 (Annexure C-4 to C-9) towards the sale consideration in respect of the unit 6 in question and also availed a housing loan, which he continues to service till date, whereas actual physical possession of the unit has not been delivered to him so far.
12] Under above circumstances, the first question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, any valid possession of the said unit stood offered and delivered to the complainant or not. It may be stated here that the opposite parties have sought to justify themselves by relying upon letter dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure R-8) claiming that possession was duly offered to the complainant. However, a bare perusal of the said letter clearly reveals that what was offered was only a "fit-out possession" and not complete and lawful possession. Relevant part of the said letter is reproduced hereunder:-
"...Please note that the access to the said unit granted in terms hereof is only for the purpose of carrying out fitout in the said unit and in no event shall be deemed to be handing over the physical possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882...."
13] Fit-out possession or paper possession does not discharge the contractual obligation of the builder to hand over complete and lawful possession of a residential unit and as such, cannot be termed as valid offer. Our this view of supported by the observations made by the Hon'ble National Commission in Shri Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. Versus M/s Sahajanand HI TECH Construction Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 346 of 2014, decided on 06 May 2016, wherein, it was held as under:-
".........The date by which the flat was to be offered for the purpose of fitouts cannot be said to be the date for handing over the possession to the purchaser since neither the builder is under an obligation to complete the construction in all respect by that date nor can the purchaser occupy the flat at the stage of offer of fitouts. Section (2) (i) of MOFA mandates the promotor not to allow any persons to enter into possession until a completion certificate is duly given by the authorities. It also mandates the purchaser not to take possession of a flat until such completion certificate has been duly given. Therefore, the date on which the flat is made available for fitouts cannot be said to be the date for delivery of possession of the flat. Such a date, by law, cannot be a date earlier than the date on which the completion 7 certificate/occupancy certificate is issued by the concerned authority....."
14] It is, therefore, held that since, the fitout possession merely permits the allottees to carry out internal works such as furniture, fixtures and interior alterations after obtaining their own contractor approvals, in case, he opts for it or wishes to do so, as such, the said fit-out permissions do not constitute possession in the eyes of law. In light of the binding precedents, the so-called "fit-out letter" dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure R-8) cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be construed as a valid or enforceable offer of possession.
15] Furthermore, the said letter dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure R-8) was also accompanied by demand of further amounts and unilateral enhancement of the super area, which is conditional in nature and coupled with monetary demands. In our considered view, the said offer of possession being conditional, cannot be said to be a valid offer of possession. Our this view also finds support from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Utpal Trehan versus DLF Home Developers Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4690 of 2022, decided on 11.07.2022, wherein it was categorically held that if the possession letter (in the present case no valid possession) is conditional upon settlement of accounts, the builder cannot contend that there was a valid offer of possession.
16] Another significant aspect of the matter is that at the time of the alleged offer of possession in September 2013, though the opposite parties were in possession of Occupation Certificate dated 09.06.2014, pertaining to Towers i.e. T1, T2, T3, T1A, T2A & T3A, which vide Declaration of Declaration (Form A) dated 02.07.2014 were named as Towers G, B, F (wherein the flat allotted to the complainant is situated), R, E & A respectively, yet it cannot be ignored that the opposite parties did not possess a valid Completion Certificate for Tower-F. Even otherwise, the said certificate is of a subsequent date (09.06.2014), whereas possession was claimed to have been offered earlier vide letter dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure R-8). It is significant to mention here that an Occupation Certificate and a Completion Certificate are two distinct documents, each serving a different 8 purpose in the construction and approval process. An Occupation Certificate is issued by the competent authority after verifying that the completed building is safe and fit for human occupation. It confirms that the structure complies with all applicable laws, safety norms, zoning regulations and environmental requirements. Only after obtaining the Occupation Certificate, is the owner legally permitted to occupy the building. 17] Similarly, a Completion Certificate certifies that the entire development works of the project has been carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plans, approvals and applicable laws. These development works are broadly classified as external development works and internal development works, each having a distinct scope and purpose. External development works refer to infrastructure and services that are executed in the periphery of or outside, the project area but are essential for the benefit and functioning of the project. These include the construction of roads and road systems, landscaping, water supply systems, sewage and drainage systems, electricity supply infrastructure such as transformers and substations, solid waste management and disposal facilities and any other works required under local laws to support the project. Internal development works, on the other hand, relate to infrastructure and facilities developed within the project premises as per the sanctioned plans. These include internal roads and footpaths, water supply lines, sewers and drains, parks and open spaces, tree planting, street lighting, community buildings, systems for treatment and disposal of sewage and water, solid waste management and disposal, water conservation measures, energy management systems, fire protection and fire safety requirements and social infrastructure such as educational, health and other public amenities, along with any other works necessary for the benefit of the project. Accordingly, the Completion Certificate confirms that both external and internal development works have been duly completed, ensuring that the project is fully developed from an infrastructure and service perspective. Without the Completion Certificate, the possession offered is incomplete, illegal and not in conformity with the law. In Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 429; Pioneer Urban Land and 9 Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 416; Treaty Construction vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2019) 8 SCC 157 and recently also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667 has clearly held that the absence of completion certificate, unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by the builder.
18] In the case of Faqir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil appeal no.3302 of 2005, judgment dated 10.06.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a prayer for completion certificate and C&D Forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C&D Forms. It was further said that if the completion certificate is not issued, the builder owes a duty to make necessary application and obtain it. If the builder fails to do so, he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss/damage. The Hon'ble National Commission also, in Inderjit Singh Bakshi Versus S.M.V. Agencies Private Limited, FA No. 729 of 2013, decided on 30.11.2015 held that the allottee is not obliged to take possession of the unit in the absence of completion certificate. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
'....An allottee is not obliged to take possession of a flat unless it is complete in every respect, including the completion certificate....' The Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) also, categorically held that legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of completion certificate issued by the competent authority. It was held in Para No.5 as follows:-
"5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 10 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at any time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat. The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite completion certificate had not been obtained by that date..... "
19] It is, therefore, held that mere obtaining of occupation certificate and that too of the subsequent date, the possession so allegedly offered vide letter 13.09.2013 (Annexure R-8) is not a valid possession and it of no help to the opposite parties.
20] Not only as above, it is also not disputed that the joint inspection of the flat conducted in the year 2015, as evidenced by the joint inspection report (Annexure C-28), fortifies the stand of the complainant that the unit is not possessionable. The inspection report clearly records that the flat was in a raw and incomplete condition, with seepage and other major deficiencies. There is nothing on record to show that the defects noted during the inspection were ever rectified by the opposite parties. The existence of such deficiencies even after the alleged offer of possession clearly demonstrates that the unit was not complete or ready for habitation. It is also noticed that the opposite parties raised various demands towards External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) and Enhanced EDC (EEDC), without placing on record any lawful basis or statutory justification for such demands. Raising of such charges without proper authority and without completion of the project further amounts to unfair trade practice. The repeated issuance of arbitrary and inconsistent demand letters, which were later revised and reduced by the opposite parties themselves, clearly establishes that the so-called offer of possession was merely a paper formality and not a genuine or lawful offer. 21] From the facts narrated above, it is clearly established that no valid possession has ever been offered or delivered to the complainant and 11 that the delay from the committed date of possession i.e. 20.09.2011 is wholly attributable to the opposite parties. The alleged fit-out possession offered in 2013, in the absence of a Completion Certificate and in the presence of serious construction defects, cannot be treated as a valid possession. The acts and omissions of the opposite parties, therefore, amount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Under these circumstances, the complainant is held entitled for delivery of possession of the unit in question alongwith suitable compensation for the period of delay in delivery thereof till possession is actually delivered to him. Compensation payable to the complainant:-
22] Now, we will like to decide as to what amount/extent of compensation should be granted to the complainant, for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the unit in question from the committed date. On account of delay in actual delivery of possession of the unit to the complainant, he has definitely suffered and is suffering mental agony, hardships and financial loss. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon'ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the units. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
"......8. Having regard to the above submission, we indicated to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the flat purchasers that it would be appropriate if the interest as ordered by NCDRC at 9% per annum is made payable over the period which was determined by the Order of the SCDRC. There is no objection by the flat purchasers to the aforesaid modification being made. Even otherwise, we are of the view that such a modification would be required in the interests of justice since it was the 12 appellants who had questioned the Order of the SCDRC before the NCDRC.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, we confirm the direction of the NCDRC that the appellants shall pay interest @ 9 per cent per annum. However, the period over which interest shall be payable will be in conformity with the Order passed by the SCDRC...."
23] Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019, by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora's case (supra). In Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon'ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
"......Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to pay interest @9% w.e.f. 31.03.2014, i.e., the expected date of delivery of the possession, on the amount deposited by the respective Complainant till 02.09.2017, i.e., the date on which the possession of the Flat was offered by the Opposite Party Developer, within two months from today......."
24] In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Recently also, the Hon'ble National Commission in Anshuman Sinha & Anr. Versus M/s. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1245 of 2016, decided on 01 February 2024 has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual 13 physical possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
".....Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in terms aforesaid to the extent that the opposite party shall pay delay compensation @ 9% p.a. on the total amount paid by the complainant with effect from 05.09.2011, that is expected date of delivery till the date of offer of possession, that is 24.12.2015 within a period of three months..."
25] As such, in the present case also, the complainant deserves just and fair compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession to him by the opposite parties. Under these circumstances, if we order opposite parties to pay interest @9% p.a. to the complainant on the entire amount deposited by him from the committed date of possession onwards till delivery of possession of the unit in question, complete in all respects, that will meet the ends of justice.
26] For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed with cost and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
(i). to deliver actual physical possession of the unit in question to the complainant, complete, in all respects and in a habitable condition, after obtaining a valid Completion Certificate specifically for Tower-F, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of balance sale consideration, if any, from the complainant and without charging from him any penalties/delayed interest. The opposite parties shall not raise any illegal or arbitrary demands including EDC, IDC or EEDC, prior to offering valid possession in accordance with law.
(ii). to pay delay compensation to the complainant by way of interest @9% per annum on the amount deposited by him from the due date of possession i.e. 20.09.2011 till 14 31.12.2025 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount of compensation for the said period shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainant.
(iii). to pay to the complainant, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire amount received from the complainant w.e.f. 01.01.2026, onwards (per month), by the 10th of the following month till compliance of directions given in sub-para no.(i) above.
(iv). to pay to the complainant, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing them mental agony & harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
27] Pending application(s), if any, in this complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
28] File be consigned to the record room after completion. Pronounced.
15.01.2026 (PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER *Ad* 15