State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagtej Kaur Grewal D/O. Jagdish Singh ... vs Manohar Infrastructure & ... on 27 March, 2026
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
Complaint case No. : 80 of 2025
Date of Institution : 08.08.2025
Date of Decision : 27.03.2026
Jagtej Kaur Grewal, d/o Jagdish Singh Grewal, r/o H.No.
3058, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh
......Complainant
Versus
1. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd,
Corporate Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector
17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Director/Managing
Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory
2. Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd, Site
Office:- Village Mullanpur Garibdas, PGI Road, District
SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Director/Managing
Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory
3. Tarinder Singh, Director/Authorized Signatory of Manohar
Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate
Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh 160017
4. Narinderbir Singh, Director/Authorized Signatory of
Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd,
Corporate Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector
17-C, Chandigarh 160017
5. Dhanwant Singh Sidhu, Director/Authorized Signatory of
Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office:-
Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector
17-C, Chandigarh 160017
.....Opposite parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate (on V.C) for the complainant Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3 & 5 2 PER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid by her to the tune of ₹55,50,000/- to the opposite parties towards purchase of a plot in the project launched by them under the name and style 'The Palm", New Chandigarh, Mohali, Punjab, on the ground that they failed to offer possession thereof, for dearth of construction and development activities and also necessary approvals/sanctions. It is the case of the complainant that she booked a plot in the said project on 29.05.2012 by paying an amount of ₹37 Lacs on 29.05.2012 itself and was accordingly, allotted a plot measuring 400 square yards. Thereafter, she paid another amount of ₹18.50 lacs on 09.07.2013. However, no agreement was executed and no specific date of handing over of possession of the said plot has been given by the opposite parties till date. It has further been averred that possession has not been delivered even after 13 years from the date of booking/allotment, till date. It has further been averred that the opposite parties raised a further demand of ₹18.50 Lacs vide letter dated 06.06.2014 whereas even after receiving more than 75% of the total sale consideration, as stated above, plot buyers agreement has not been executed by the opposite parties. It has further been averred that as per Section 6 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, it is mandatory for the developer/promoter to execute a registered agreement with the allottee before receiving more than 25% of the total sale consideration. It has further been stated that the complainant wrote letters dated 11.09.2023, 30.12.2023 and 16.09.2024 to the opposite parties highlighting that they had been running from pillar to post to get possession of the allotted plot complete in all respects, however, to her utter dismay, there is no response or action from the side of the opposite parties. It has further been averred that the opposite parties finally reverted on 17.06.2025, Exhibit C-6, stating that the letter of allotment dated 29.05.2012 was merely an expression of interest for purchase of one 302.83 sq. yard residential plot. It has further been averred that now the opposite parties after lapse of 13 years took a summersault and issued letter qua allotment of 302.83 sq. yards, which itself shows the ill intention of the opposite parties. It has further been 3 averred that the opposite parties do not have the completion certificate for the project in question and the development is still going on and is nowhere near completion as the plot in question has not been earmarked till date.
2] By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties in not offering/delivering possession of the plot in question, despite the fact that the complainant started pouring money from 2012 itself, amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of amount paid alongwith interest, compensation etc. 3] The claim of the complainant has been contested by opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 by filing joint reply, wherein, they took a preliminary objection that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction as the unit allotted to the complainant is situated at New Chandigarh, District Mohali, Punjab. However, on merits, the allegations of the complainant have been vehemently denied being wholly incorrect and baseless. It has been pleaded that the complainant had merely submitted an Expression of Interest for a future upcoming project and had applied for a 400 sq. yard plot, however, she was provisionally allotted a plot measuring 302.83 sq. yards, which she never accepted nor did she come forward to execute the Buyer Agreement or make the requisite payments as per the payment plan. The contesting opposite parties further submit that the complainant was duly informed through her representative, namely Sunaina Aujla, about the terms of the Expression of Interest and the tentative nature of allotment, including the fact that in case the allotted plot was not acceptable, the deposited amount could be refunded without interest. It has further been pleaded that the complainant remained silent from the year 2013 to 2023 and did not take any steps for execution of the Buyer Agreement or acceptance of the allotment and, therefore, the present complaint seeking refund of the amount is clearly barred by limitation and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The opposite parties maintained that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part as letters dated 17.06.2025 and 18.08.2025 were duly issued calling upon the complainant to comply with the payment plan but instead of doing so, the complainant has chosen to file the present complaint on false and untenable grounds. It 4 has further been pleaded that the timeline to handover the possession would start after date given in buyer agreement for handing over of possession is over. It has further been pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 12th March 2018 in Civil Appeal No(s). 3533-3534 of 2017, titled M/S. Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/S. Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. v. Trevor D'Lima & Ors., held that "a reasonable timeframe must be considered" for the completion of real estate projects and possession delivery, especially when delays are influenced by factors beyond developer's control. It has further been pleaded that the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that a period of three years from the execution date of agreement is a reasonable timeframe for contract completion and possession delivery. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4] In the replication filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted the averments contained in written reply filed by opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5. 5] The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case. 6] The complainant as well as opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 also filed their respective written arguments.
7] We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through record of the case very carefully.
8] Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that on behalf of opposite party No.4 - Narinderbir Singh, IA/303/2025 has been moved by the Company - opposite party No.1, for deletion of name of opposite party No.4 on the ground that he had resigned since February 2023 and is no longer a Director in the Company and is unnecessarily been made a party in the complaint. It has further been stated in the application that even during the time, when opposite party No.4 was a director in opposite party No.1 - Company, he was not actively involved in day to day affairs of the Company and was more of a sleeping director and thus, is not a necessary party. It has further been stated that there exists no separate, independent or distinct contractual relationship between the complainant and opposite party No.4 in their individual or personal capacities for any obligations, rights, duties or liabilities arising under the agreement for sale 5 or otherwise. It has further been stated that the entire transaction for booking to allotment in the year 2025 was conducted solely between the complainant and opposite party No.1 as a corporate entity. It has further been stated that the complainant has neither alleged nor established any such exceptional circumstances that would warrant lifting the corporate veil and holding him personally liable.
9] The application has been contested by the complainant stating that since there is recurring cause of action to the complainant since the year 2012 and since opposite party No.4 being promoter/director of opposite party No.1 - company had been instrumental in causing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, it is a necessary party to the complaint. It has further been stated that opposite party No.1 has no cause of action/locus standi to file the application on behalf of opposite party No.4 for its deletion from the array of the parties in complaint. It has further been stated that it is settled law that directors being instrumental to the running of the company are vicariously liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the application has been made by the complainant.
10] Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made in the application as well as the reply filed by the complainant, we find no merit in the prayer made for deletion of the name of Opposite Party No.4. The plea raised by Opposite Party No.1 that Opposite Party No.4 had resigned from the Directorship of the Company in February 2023 and was merely a sleeping director, not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Company, cannot be accepted at this stage. It is not in dispute that the cause of action in the present matter had arisen as far back as in the year 2012 when the complainant had applied for allotment of the plot and made substantial payments to the Company and the grievance regarding non- allotment and delay has continued thereafter, thereby constituting a recurring cause of action. During a substantial part of this period, Opposite Party No.4 admittedly held the position of Director in Opposite Party No.1- Company. Merely claiming that he was not actively involved in the day-to- day affairs of the Company or describing himself as a sleeping director cannot absolve him of the responsibility attached to the office of a Director, 6 particularly when the acts complained of relate to the functioning and obligations of the Company during the period when he was part of its management. At this stage, the Commission is only required to examine whether the presence of Opposite Party No.4 is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, his role as a Director during the relevant period cannot be brushed aside. Furthermore, the contention that there existed no separate or independent contractual relationship between the complainant and Opposite Party No.4 in his personal capacity is also not sufficient to seek his deletion, as the liability of the Directors for acts of the Company, particularly where allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are raised, is a matter which requires adjudication on merits after appreciation of evidence.
11] Further the argument that Opposite Party No.1 has filed the present application on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 also does not advance the case of the applicant in as much as the question of deletion of a party is to be determined on the basis of necessity and propriety in the adjudication of the dispute. In view of the allegations made in the complaint and the fact that Opposite Party No.4 was part of the management of the Company during the relevant period when the alleged acts and omissions occurred, his presence cannot be said to be unnecessary or superfluous at this stage. 12] Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the grounds raised in the application are devoid of merit and do not warrant deletion of the name of Opposite Party No.4 from the array of parties. Accordingly, the application (IA/303/2025) being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed.
13] First of all, we will deal with the preliminary objection raised by opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 with regard to the territorial jurisdiction. It has been stated by these opposite parties that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction as the unit allotted to the complainant is situated at New Chandigarh, District Mohali, Punjab. It may be stated here that Section 47 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides as under:-
".....47. (4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State 7 Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain...."
Bare perusal of the above said provisions of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 47 (4) of the CPA 2019 abundantly make it very clear that a complaint may be filed at a place, where the opposite party(s) actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Sub-section (c) and (d) of Section 47 (4) of the said Act, further clarifies that the State Commission within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action, wholly or in part arises or the complainant resides or personally works for gain, shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint. In the instant case, since the complainant is residing in Chandigarh i.e. H.No.3058, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh, therefore, in view of Section 47 (4)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As such, objection of territorial jurisdiction taken by the opposite parties stands rejected.
14] So far as the objection raised by contesting opposite parties with regard to the complaint being barred by limitation is concerned, the same does not merit acceptance. It may be observed that the complainant, through the present complaint, is seeking refund of the amount deposited towards the plot in question on the ground that the possession thereof has not been delivered to her till date. As per the case set up by the complainant, the dispute substantially arose when the contesting opposite parties, vide letter dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure C-6), while making reference 8 to the Expression of Interest dated 19.05.2012, for purchase of 302.83 sq. yard residential plot, raised a demand of outstanding dues amounting to ₹7,03,440/- along with interest, despite the fact that the complainant had originally applied for booking of a plot measuring 400 sq. yards on 29.05.2012. The said communication gave a fresh cause of action to the complainant to approach the Commission. It is further pertinent to note that the grievance of the complainant pertains to non-delivery of possession and the consequential claim for refund of the deposited amount, which constitutes a continuing cause of action. In such circumstances, every failure on the part of the opposite parties to either deliver possession of the plot or refund the deposited amount gives rise to a recurring and continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant. Consequently, the limitation cannot be said to have expired merely on account of the passage of time from the date of initial booking.
15] Moreover, when the matter is viewed in light of the letter dated 17.06.2025 issued by the opposite parties, the present complaint filed on 08.08.2025 clearly falls within the prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, the objection raised by opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 regarding limitation is devoid of merit and the same stands rejected. 16] Coming to the merits of the case, it is borne out from Exhibit C-1, which is application acknowledgement (customer copy) issued by the opposite parties qua receipt of application dated 29.05.2012 of the complainant. Perusal of this document clearly reveals that the complainant applied for a 400 sq. yards plot in the project of the opposite parties @₹18,500/- per sq. yard and the basic sale price of the said plot was ₹74,00,000/-, against which, the opposite parties acknowledged receipt of ₹37,00,000/- as the initial amount. The complainant further paid an amount of ₹18,50,000/- to the Company on 29.06.2013 (receipt issued on 09.07.2013), Exhibit C-2, which is also not in dispute. Alongwith this receipt, the opposite parties issued Registration No.PEC/6018 vide document dated 09.07.2013, which is part of Exhibit C-2, at Page 24 of the record, wherein it was clearly mentioned by the opposite parties that "Mrs. Jagtej Kaur Grewal is registered for a 400 Sq Yds residential Plot in our 9 upcoming project in GMADA area." Admittedly vide letter dated 06.07.2014, Exhibit C-3, the marketing team of the opposite parties informed the complainant that CLU for Mega Project being developed by Manohar Infrastructue & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. has been granted and they are in the process to offer to the complainant a plot number by December 2014 (at Page 26). However, when the complainant did not hear anything from the opposite parties, she vide her letter dated 11.09.2023, Exhibit C-3A, wrote to opposite party No.3 - Sh. Taraninder Singh, Director of the opposite party
- Company, putting her grievance with regard to non allotment of a 400 sq. yard plot on the site area already developed and ready for possession and not in some area yet to be developed. This letter was duly received by the opposite party - Company at its Chandigarh office on 12.09.2023 as per Stamp of Company affixed thereon. The relevant extract from this letter, inter-alia, reads thus:-
"Subject: Long delayed allotment and possession of plot booked in Palm Eco City.
Sir, Following is brief facts of the case:
I, Jagtej Kaur Grewal D/o Jagdish Singh Grewal R/o H. No. 3058, Sector 19 D, Chandigarh, Ph. 9872417700 would like to make the following statement of facts:
1. Initial application for 400 sq yd. plot in Palm Eco City was made on 29.5.2012 which was duly received by Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. dated 29.5.12 Customer Copy No. given was PEC-46. Detail of payment is RTGS No. PSIBH12150437488 dated 29.5.2012 for amount 37,00,000/- (Thirty Seven Lakhs).
2. Further payment of 18,50,000/- (Eighteen lakhs fifty thousand) was acknowledged by Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 9.7.2013 Receipt No. 301. Details of payment are Cheque No. 032376 drawn on IDBI Bank dated 29.6.2013.
3. This application was made through Ms. Sunaina Aujla who has been enquiring verbally with you about progress of site development works periodically, especially after 2018, as no communication has been received from you regarding specific plot number to be allotted to me.10
4. However, no positive response was received from Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. since last five years (2018 mentioned earlier).
5. Due to Covid 19 pandemic and having to look after aged mother, who is 99 years old, this was put on hold till May 2023.
Thereafter several visits were made to Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd office in sector 17. Specifically, we were directed to Mr. Shiv Sharma who gave various assurances on allotment of plot speedily and meeting with Mr. Taraninder Singh, Director, Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. However, no appointment could be secured after repeated attempts.
6. We had made booking for plot on the market reputation and name of Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. However, the development on site has taken place but we have not been accommodated in the list of allotees. Needless to say this amounts to harassment and will eventually translate to a financial loss to me if no corrective action is taken by Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which would be morally and ethically wrong.
We once again urge you to allot a 400 sq. yd. plot on site area already developed and ready for possession, not some area yet to be developed. We mention this point as we were proposed some area in July 2023 which currently is a paddy field and not any developed plot area. Again, I would like to highlight that more than 10 years have passed since payments made to you and appreciation of the project is partly funded by our payments detailed above, and I deserve to be beneficiary of the appreciation."
17] Thus, from the contents of the said letter, it is prima facie established that the complainant had applied for allotment of a 400 sq. yard plot in Palm Eco City in the year 2012 and had paid substantial amounts of ₹37,00,000/- through RTGS on 29.05.2012 and a further sum of ₹18,50,000/- through cheque in the year 2013, which payments were duly acknowledged by the developer. The said payments clearly indicate that the complainant had hired the services of the developer for allotment of a residential plot, thereby establishing a consumer-service provider relationship between the parties. The letter further reveals that despite repeated enquiries and follow-ups made from time to time, particularly through Ms. Sunaina Aujla, no specific plot was allotted to the complainant and no concrete response was received from the developer. It also reflects that even after a lapse of more than ten years from the date of payment, neither allotment of a developed plot nor delivery of possession has been 11 made to the complainant. On the contrary, the complainant alleged that an undeveloped area was proposed to her in July 2023, which she declined and has accordingly demanded allotment of a fully developed 400 sq. yard plot ready for possession. Thus, the contents of the letter primarily establish prolonged delay, non-allotment of the plot despite receipt of substantial consideration, which resulted in huge harassment and financial loss coupled with deficiency in service on the part of the developer - opposite parties.
18] The complainant wrote another letter dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure C-4) to opposite party No.3, in continuation of her earlier letter dated 11.09.2023, again putting her grievance regarding non allotment of the plot in question. The relevant extract of this letter, inter-alia, reads thus:-
"We once again urge you to allot a 400 sq. yd. plot on site area already developed and ready for possession, not some area yet to be developed. We mention this point as we were proposed some area in July 2023 which currently is a paddy field and not any developed plot area. After that we requested a meeting with Mr. Taraninder Singh and on reaching the office we were told he is not available and on our protesting such treatment Ms. Sargun met us and we were assured that a plot would be given to us by November 2023. Then in December 2023 we were again proposed some area with the false promise that it was ready for possession. Upon visiting the site along with your representative, it was found to our dismay that this so called plot and parcel of land had not yet received the approvals and sanctions from the regulatory authority that is GMADA, making it totally unfeasible for the possession."
19] Not only above, the complainant again wrote letter dated 16.09.2024, Exhibit C-5, to opposite party No.3, in continuation of her previous letters dated 11.09.2023 and 30.12.2023, wherein she while reiterating her grievance, requested, inter-alia, as under:-
"We once again urge you to allot a 400 sq. yd. plot on site area already developed and ready for possession, not some area yet to be developed. We mention this point as we were proposed some area in July 2023 which currently is a paddy field and not any developed plot area. After that we requested a meeting with Mr. Taraninder Singh and on reaching the office we were told he is not available and on our protesting such treatment Ms. Sargun met us and we were assured that a plot would be given to us by November 2023. Then in December 2023 we were again proposed some area with the false promise that it 12 was ready for possession. Upon visiting the site along with your representative, it was found to our dismay that this so called plot and parcel of land had not yet received the approvals and sanctions from the regulatory authority that is GMADA, making it totally unfeasible for the possession.
Therefore, you must understand and appreciate that fact that more than 11 years have passed since payments made to you and appreciation of the project is partly funded by our payments detailed above, and I deserve to be beneficiary of the appreciation.
Repeated visits to your office with you persistently evading to meet us and your total silence and lack of response to repeated letters amounts to not only unethical conduct and unprofessional behaviour but monetary loss and mental harassment, as a huge sum of Rs. 55,50,000/- (Fifty Five Lakh Fifty thousand) paid by us by 23.6.2013 has been blocked for more than 11 years without any returns to us. This is our final request being made that we should immediately be allotted and given possession of a suitable 400 sq. yd. possessionable plot for which 75% of the due amount has been made more than 11 years back. Any further lack of response and action from your side will leave us with no other option but to seek legal recourse."
20] Now, at this stage, the real face of the opposite parties came into picture, when they illegally, arbitrarily and with malafide intentions, issued letter dated 17.06.2025, Exhibit C-6, to the complainant, wherein they in reference to the Expression of Interest dated 19.05.2012, stated the size of the plot as 302.83 sq. yards instead of 400 sq. yard and asked the complainant to pay the outstanding dues of ₹7,03,440/- along with interest to be deposited at the earliest. At this juncture, the complainant was shocked to see that the opposite parties suo moto reduced/changed the size of the plot when she originally had applied for allotment of 400 sq. yard plot and paid the amount accordingly.
21] Moreover, bare perusal of the application/Expression of Interest dated 29.05.2012, Annexure R-1, placed on record by Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 themselves alongwith their reply, clearly reveals that the complainant had applied for allotment of a 400 sq. yards residential plot and had remitted a substantial amount of ₹37,00,000/- towards the said booking. Although the document mentions that the sizes are tentative and subject to variation and modifications by the Company, yet such a clause cannot be stretched to an extent so as to permit the opposite parties to drastically reduce the size of the plot after an inordinate delay of more than 13 thirteen years. It cannot be accepted that the opposite parties remained completely silent from May 2012 and only when the complainant started raising her grievance regarding non-allotment of the plot, issued a letter in June 2025 mentioning the size of the plot as 302.83 sq. yards instead of the originally applied 400 sq. yards. Such conduct on the part of the opposite parties appears to be a clear-cut attempt to unilaterally alter the fundamental terms of the transaction and to deprive the complainant of the benefit for which she had made substantial payment way back in the year 2012.
22] The aforesaid act of the opposite parties not only reflects arbitrariness and lack of transparency but also squarely falls within the ambit of deficiency in service, as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in as much as the opposite parties failed to perform their obligation of allotting the plot as promised within a reasonable time despite receiving a substantial portion of the consideration. Furthermore, the act of inducing the complainant to deposit a huge amount for a 400 sq. yards plot and thereafter attempting to offer a significantly smaller plot after more than a decade amounts to unfair trade practice as it involves misleading representation and adoption of deceptive methods in the course of providing housing services. Such conduct clearly demonstrates that the opposite parties have acted in a manner which is not only contrary to fair business practices but has also caused financial loss and mental harassment to the complainant.
23] Further, the contesting opposite parties, by placing reliance upon Annexure R-4, have pleaded that the application acknowledgment dated 29.05.2012 stood cancelled and was replaced with a receipt. However, in our considered view, such a plea appears to be nothing but an afterthought and an attempt on the part of the opposite parties to mislead this Commission. It is significant to note that opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 themselves have placed on record the letter dated 09.07.2013, Exhibit R-3, whereby the complainant was specifically informed that she had been registered for allotment of a 400 sq. yards residential plot in their upcoming project in the GMADA area. Once the opposite parties themselves acknowledged and confirmed the registration of the complainant for a 400 14 sq. yards plot through the said communication, their subsequent stand that the earlier application acknowledgment dated 29.05.2012 stood cancelled and replaced by another document is wholly untenable and self- contradictory. Such an inconsistent plea taken by opposite parties No.1, 2, 3 & 5 clearly indicate that the opposite parties are attempting to wriggle out of their contractual obligations by creating confusion with regard to the very basis of the transaction. This conduct not only reflects lack of bonafides but also strengthens the inference that the opposite parties are trying to evade their liability towards the complainant by taking mutually destructive stands before this Commission.
24] In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, duly proved on record, one thing is clear that despite receipt of substantial amount of almost 75% of the total sale consideration, the opposite parties failed to execute agreement in respect of the plot and also failed to offer possession to the complainant. Not even a single reason has been given by the opposite parties, as to why they failed to do so, despite receiving substantial amount, referred to above, from the complainant. Thus, the act of raising demands and receiving substantial amount without executing the agreement, in respect of a plot, booking whereof was done in the year 2012, was not only unfair but illegal, which act also contravenes Section 6 (1) of the PAPR Act, which lays a duty on the opposite parties to execute the agreements for sale as per law, after obtaining the maximum sale consideration of 25%.
25] The opposite parties were legally bound under law to execute the agreement and to get the same registered under the Registration Act 1908, after obtaining 25% of the sale consideration but in this case, the said provision has been violated. The opposite parties were, thus, deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice on this count. 26] It may also be stated here that this Commission has decided number of cases in respect of the project in question and it has been observed that project in question was got approved only on 22.03.2013. As such, it leaves no doubt with the Commission to believe that in the year 2012, money was collected from the complainant and other prospective buyers, with animus of cheating and fraud by launching the project and 15 selling units/plots therein by violating the terms and conditions of PAPR Act, which act cannot be cured by obtaining the exemption from the provisions of PAPR Act, at the subsequent stage. There is another valid reason with this Commission to hold that the money was collected from the complainant and other prospective buyers with animus of cheating and fraud as in one of the matter Puja Garg Vs M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 278 of 2019, decided by this Commission on 31.03.2021, it came to the knowledge of this Commission (when we went through the documentary evidence therein), that despite the fact that as per condition no.v) of the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 03.05.2013 granted in favour of the opposite parties in respect of the project in question, they were directed not to advertise/launch it and not to collect money from general public for allotment of land, plot etc. without the approval of layout and zoning plans and also exemption under section 44 of PAPR Act is issued by the State Govt. yet, they violated the same and launched the project and started selling the plots therein, starting from February 2011, when they were not even the owners of the land underneath the said project. Under those circumstances, they were held liable for adopting unfair trade practice on this count. In the present case also, the opposite parties have repeated the said violations.
27] Under these circumstances, it is held that the opposite parties indulged into unfair trade practice and were also negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant.
28] Nowhere in their reply, the contesting opposite parties have stated a single word with regard to development at the site or as to whether the project is complete or what is the present situation at the site or the project in question. Thus, an adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties that they were not ready with the allotment or delivery of possession of the plot in question till date. On the other hand, had the development activities been completed at the project site, the opposite parties, could have placed on record copy of the completion certificate, if obtained from the competent authorities. As such, an adverse inference could easily be drawn against them that they are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot in question, to the complainant, for dearth of 16 development activities. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that we cannot make the complainant to wait for an indefinite period, on the whims and fancies of the opposite parties. It is well settled law that non-delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of a builder and in those circumstances, the allottee is well within his/her right to seek refund of the amount paid. It was also so said by the Hon'ble National Commission in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018. The above view taken is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Versus Trevor D' Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442. In the present case also, since there has been an inordinate delay in the matter, and still the opposite parties are not sure as to by which date development will be completed and possession of the plot will be delivered to the complainant, as such, we are of the considered opinion that if we order refund of the amount paid alongwith interest from the respective dates of deposits that will meet the ends of justice. 29] Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Raj Mehta, Appeal (Civil) 5882 of 2002, decided on 24.09.2004, held that if the builder is at fault in not delivering possession of the units/plots by the stipulated date or within a reasonable period where no agreement is executed, it cannot expect the allottee(s) to go on paying installments to it. Similar view had also been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser. Thus, in the present case also, if the complainant withheld some part of payment, when she came to know that there was no development at the project site and the opposite parties, after 13 years reduce the site of the plot substantially; possession of the plot has also not been offered despite making payment of substantial amount, she was right in doing so, in view of principle of law laid down by 17 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra). Thus, no help therefore can be drawn by the opposite parties from the letters sent to the complainant asking her to make the remaining payment of the outstanding amount, in the absence of development works. 30] Now, we will deal with the question, as to what rate of interest should be awarded to the complainant, while ordering refund of amount paid. It may be stated here that compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. The party concerned in refund cases is suffering a loss in as much as she had deposited the money in the hope of getting a plot but she is deprived of same; she is deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that plot and also she would have to take out more money from her pocket for beating the escalation in price, for buying a new flat/plot and as such, compensation to be granted by way of interest on the deposited amount in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. Our this view is supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 wherein it was held that in a case where money is being simply returned, the purchaser is suffering a loss in as much as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot and therefore, he has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price and the compensation in such cases, therefore, would necessarily have to be higher.
31] Per observations made above, the complainant is certainly entitled to refund of her paid up amount i.e. ₹55,50,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits; in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019, decided on 7.4.2022, wherein it was held as under:
"We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by 18 the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interests shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.
At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the Consumer for enhancement of interest."
32] Further, Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs. ANKIT JAIN, First Appeal No.185 of 2020 decided on 17.05.2022, reduced the interest rate awarded by this Commission on the deposited amount(s) from 12% to 9% and the penal interest from 15% to 12%. Following the case of Ankit Jain (supra), similar view was taken by Hon'ble National Commission in MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Vs. KAPIL DUA, First Appeal No.1516 of 2018 decided on 19.12.2022. Not only this, in a recent case M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & ORS. VS. JORAWER SINGH MANN, First Appeal No.1800 of 2017 decided on 20.03.2023, the Hon'ble National Commission while reducing the rate of interest from 13% to 9%, ordered refund of the amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment.
33] The complainant is also held entitled for compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her at the hands of the opposite parties and costs of litigation. 34] For the reasons stated above, the complaint is partly allowed with costs. The opposite parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-
i) To refund an amount ₹55,50,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits onwards, without deducting any TDS, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount shall carry 3% penal interest i.e. 12% p.a. (9% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.), from the date of 19 default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 30 days' till realization.
ii) To pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of ₹75,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of ₹75,000/-, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 30 days' till realization.
35] However, it is further made clear that in case the complainant has availed loan facility from any Bank/Financial Institution, for making payment towards price of the plot in question, it will have the first charge on the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant.
36] Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
37] File be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced.
27.03.2026 [PADMA PANDEY] PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 20