State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Inderdeep Singh vs M/S. Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 27 January, 2026
<«■
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
Consumer Complaint No.3009/2017
WITH
IA/4132/2025 & IA/14798/2025
(DIRECTIONS & DIRECTIONS)
Inderdeep Singh
S/o Gurdeep Singh
R/o C-0605, Ireo Uptown, Sector 66,
Gurgaon Haryana ... Complainant
Versus
M/s Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised Representatives
Having its registered office at
Godrej Bhavan, 4th Floor, 4A Home
Street, Fort, Mumbai 40001
M/s Magic Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representatives
Having its registered office at:
D-13, Defence Colony, New Delhi ... Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For the Complainant Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Kain, Advocate
Mr. Karan S. Negi, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties - Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Advocate
Mr. Kapil Madan, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Gauba, Advocate
Ms. Aadhya, Advocate
Mr. Naksh Pandey, Advocate
Pronounced on 27.01.2026
ORDER
1. This Complaint has been instituted praying that since the promises made by the Opposite Parties for providing all the complete facilities for the Page 1 of 31 enjoyment of the Unit allotted to the Complainant are not available even today, and were not available even on the date when the Complaint was filed, there is a clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties by not completing the project. The timeline provided for the handing over of the premises complete in all respects has been violated. Therefore, the relief prayed is for refund of the entire amount together with interest @ 18 % p.m. from the date of payments till actual reimbursements. In addition thereto, a sum of Lakhs for mental agony and harassment has also been claimed.
Thus, the delay in handing over of possession of a completed project and in particular, the absence of the 24 meter wide road connecting the project with Dwarka Expressway, is a continuing deficiency and hence, the prayer is for refund keeping in view the fact that the booking was opted for through an application dated 10.09.2012.
2. The Builder Buyer Agreement was entered into on 25.03.2013 and according to the Agreement, the delivery of possession was to be made in 49 months plus 6 months of grace period. However, the Complainant alleges that the timeline is 36 months and the prospective promised date of possession would be 30.01.2017. It is also alleged in the Complaint that the amount paid is ^89,24,245/- as against the total consideration of ^90,76,790/-. The contention raised is that inspite of having paid a Page 2 of 31 substantial amount, the unit has neither been completed nor possession could be taken of in the project "Godrej Summit' Sector 104, Gurgaon, Haryana. It has been alleged in paragraph 21 onwards that the construction has not been completed nor the milestones have been achieved and no satisfactory reply has been given in spite of repeated requests with regard to the completion of project.
3. After the Written Statement was filed and the matter contested, a Rejoinder has been filed by the Complainant and while giving a reply to the preliminary objections and submissions on behalf of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant in para 2 of the Rejoinder states as under:
That the complainant received the offer of possession letter from the O.P dated 29th June 2017. The complainants also received the final statement of accounts along with the offer of possession. Clearly as per the offer of possession letter, OP was forcing everyone to make the remaining payment along with one year advance maintenance, electricity and other adhoc charges before even allowing the complainant to visit the project site to check whether the unit is complete and is in the habitable position. On further enquiry and the personal visit to the project site, it was observed by the complainant that the project was far from ready to be offered for possession. The project neither completed as per the terms of the buyers agreement as the basis amenities like water connection, safety plans etc. and nor other amenities like internal approach road, building entrance, lifts, club house, swimming pool and other common areas were developed. Moreover, there was no proper approach road to enter the building and society. Over and above, the quality of construction of the apartment was also not up to the mark. The O.P have used poor quality building materials Page 3 of 31 in developing the house in question. There were following deficiencies which were noted and informed by the complainant to the O.P. after personal visit to the site by complainant.
a. The building had no water connection, inadequate fire safety plan, no operational lift, no security conditions.
b. Internal approach roads connecting building within the complex and club house were under construction.
c. The club house of the complex was incomplete and under construction. The representatives of the O.P informed that it will take at least couple of months for the external completion and will take at least 6 months for it to be fully functional.
d. The road connectivity to complex is under construction. They have done nothing about the approach road to the project whereas all other projects in their vicinity have built their own approach road and connected to Dwarka Express Way (DEW). Currently the entry for another apartment complex is being used.
e. The water connection is not available. Currently the supply is via Tankers and there is no confirmed information as to by when the water connection will be given.
f. The electricity connection is not in place. Currently the electricity is being provided by connection from adjoining apartment complex. This actually makes the OC null and void as the OC clearly dictates the provisions to be completed before handing over the possession.
4. It may be noted that this Rejoinder was filed through diary No.34662 before this Commission on 20.08.2019.
5. The essence of the submission was, therefore, that there was delay in completion of the project and handing over of possession of the unit complete in all respects as well as the major flaw of non-availability of 24 meter wide road connecting the project with the Dwarka Expressway.
Page 4 of 316. After the dispute was assessed on previous occasions, one of the defence taken in the affidavits filed by the Opposite Parties/Developer/Builder was to the effect that possession had been offered timely within 49 months and that the Opposite Parties in addition had a grace period of further six months. As such, there was no delay in the offer of possession which was made wayback in the year 2017.
7. The second defence taken was that so far as the provision of a 24 meter wide road is concerned, the same has already been constructed as per the promise offered, the Letter of Intent and the license granted to the Opposite Parties which is complete insofar as it relates to the area falling within the project. Admittedly, beyond the area of the project, there still remains an absence of connectivity with the Dwarka Expressway and accordingly the site plan, and as per the documents on record, the Opposite Parties urged that the said road has to be necessarily provided by the State Government which the Opposite Parties were obliged under the sanction order to bear the expenses of. According to the Opposite Parties, they have complied with this condition but till date, the said connecting road which is 24 meter wide has neither been made subject matter of the possession by the State Government nor has it been provided by it. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Page 5 of 31 Parties as it is the State Government which has failed to acquire the land and provide the same to the Opposite Parties in spite of the fact that the Opposite Parties have acquiesced to the terms offered in this regard by the State Government while granting Letter of Intent and the license. In the absence of any fault on the part of the Opposite Parties, this is no deficiency and cannot be attributed to the Opposite Parties by the Complainants.
8. Thus, according to the Opposite Parties, there is no deficiency in service and consequently, the Complaint deserved to be dismissed.
9. However, a substantial number of other similar Complaints were filed before this Commission. The same have been allowed holding that the Opposite parties were deficient by not providing 24 meter wide road and the other amenities and hence, the Complaint deserved to be allowed. The very same issues were, therefore, contested in several cases relating to the same project and the same subject matter.
10. The Complainant has alleged that the brochure issued by the Opposite Parties categorically stated "it is a short walk away from Dwarka Expressway, Godrej Summit has everything for you and your family will ever need". The brochure also indicates that the project is situated 14 km Page 6 of 31 away from Dwarka Expressway and, therefore, its location is in close proximity thereof thereby enhancing the accessibility to the said property.
The layout plans coupled with the locational promises made with the connecting road to confirm the said accessibility through the Express Highway has been displayed not only in the brochure but is also evident from all the documents on record and it is for the said reason that when the other cases came to be decided by this Commission, the Complainant relied on the order passed by this Commission in the case of Rajeev Singhal & Ann vs. Godrej Projects Development Limited as well as other decisions and accordingly, this was noted in the previous order dated 26.03.2024 passed by this Commission which is extracted hereinunder:
Heard learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has sought an adjournment.
Learned counsel for the complainant has invited the attention of the Bench to the order passed by this Commission in the case of Rajiv Singhal Vs. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr., CC/278/2018, decided on 21.10.2022. A copy of the said order has been placed on at page 8 of the written synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
It appears that the said order has been passed in respect of a premises under the same project. The only distinction on facts appears to be that in that case, the booking of the complainant had been cancelled and the amount deposited by the complainant had been forfeited. However, the complaint was allowed after taking notice of the main grievances regarding deficiencies in the construction of the project including the absence of a 24 meter wide road. After assessing the entire facts and the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 6187 of 2018 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this commission came to the conclusion that the Page 7 of 31 deficiencies exist and accordingly the refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant was directed together with interest @ 9% per annum.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no difference in the cause which has been pleaded in the present complaint and is similar to that in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra). Learned counsel for the opposite party has pointed out that the order passed by this Commission in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) has been assailed in Civil Appeal No. 8353 of 2022 before the Apex Court and the same is pending consideration. While passing an interim order on 13.03.2023, the Apex Court has called upon the builder to comply with the direction of deposit, which is extracted herein under:
"List this matter on 21.03.2023.
Meanwhile, the appellant shall deposit the amount which has been directed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi to be paid by the respondents, within a period of one week before this Registry and the amount shall then be deposited in a short period Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank. We also make it clear that the deposit of this amount shall not prejudice the case of the appellant or the respondents before this Court."
The matter has not been disposed of and is pending before the Apex Court and therefore it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid order in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) being still in jeopardy, the present complaint may not be decided on the same terms as in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra).
Prima facie the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant seems to be correct, in as much as there is no stay of the order of this Commission in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) by the Apex Court. An interim order in another case may not be a binding precedent. To the contrary the Apex Court has directed the deposit of the entire amount as awarded by this Commission before the Apex Court.
Be that as it may, since the dispute in the present case is similar, either the opposite party may proceed with the final hearing of the case or in the event they seek to take shelter of the pendency of the matter in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) pending before the Apex Court, then in that event the opposite , party will have to make the deposit of the amount, the refund Page 8 of 31 whereof has been sought by the complainant in the present case at par with the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra).
Learned counsel for the opposite parties prays for a week's time to seek instructions. One week time is granted.
As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, let the matter come up on 09.04.2024 at 9.30 a.m.
11. Paragraph 11 of the order in the case of case Rajiv Singhal (Supra) is extracted hereinunder:
11. Careful consideration of the pleas of complainant and OPs regarding responsibility for construction of 24m wide road outside project area and relevant documents in this regard show that no doubt the responsibility for land acquisition and construction of that road lies with the state authorities, OPs have admitted that they are accountable to pay for the proportionate cost towards the said acquisition and construction. No doubt, the said issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana for adjudication, the way proposed 24 m road outside the project area leading to the Dwarka Expressway, which was a key feature of the project, was portrayed in the advertisements/brochure of the OPs and the Buyers' Agreements, it was certainly an important factor for the prospective purchasers to book the units in the said project believing that such a connectivity would exist when the project is completed. On account of uncertainty about the construction of this project as well as the possible timeframe even if the road gets constructed finally, has certainly put the allottees of the project at a disadvantage. As regards deficiencies with respect to regular water supply, electricity supply and sewerage treatment plant, a perusal of written statement/reply of the OPs show that grievances of the complainant in this regard are genuine and such utilities are being presently provided to the allottees on adhoc basis only till the concerned state authorities make permanent arrangements for provision of such utilities on regular basis by laying down the proper infrastructure for the same. Hence, in view of the foregoing observations with respect to non-provision of 24 m wide road outside the project area as well as deficiency in provision of other utilities on regular basis till the committed time-frame of Page 9 of 31 offer of possession, the complainant was justified in seeking refund of their deposits and action of OPs in cancellation of the allotment with consequence of forfeiture of the earnest money deposited of Rs.46,94,957/- is not correct. It was conceded by the counsel for the OPs during the hearing that even the forfeiture amount has been more than the required as per relevant clause of the agreement.
12. Relying on the same, the Complainants had advanced their submissions but the plea taken by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties was also noted as information was tendered about the Appeal filed against the said order before the Apex court being Civil Appeal No.8353 of 2022 wherein interim order was passed therein as indicated above.
13. However, one of the prominent submissions raised by Mr. Makkar, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties was advanced on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition No.61876 of 2018 filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court where the relief prayed against the State Government and other authorities was to compel them to acquire the land for the construction and development of the 24 meter wide internal central road in terms of the Letter of Intent dated 03.10.2011 and the license dated 07.12.2011. Other reliefs challenging the policy decision dated 21.08.2015 have also been claimed. After having noticed these arguments, this Commission on 09.04.2024 passed the following order:
Heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel for the Complainants who inviting the attention of the Bench to the order Page 10 of 31 dated 26.03.2024, submits that the brochure that has been filed by the Opposite Parties clearly promises the availability and accessibility to the property at a walking distance from the main road and with a promised connectivity that was reflected in the layout plan accompanying the brochure. The contention therefore is that the represented essential facility has not been provided by the developer which is a clear deficiency in service and therefore the refund deserves to be awarded by this Commission. He has again invited the attention of the Bench to the order passed in the case of Rajiv Singhal Vs. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr., CC/278/2018, decided on 21.10.2022, to be applicable on the facts herein with specific reference to paragraph 9 of the order regarding the non-existence of the facility connecting the project with a 24 meter wide road. He urges with the help of paragraph 11 of the same judgment to contend that the allottees of the project were put to disadvantage on account of this uncertainty which is a clear deficiency and therefore the Complainant in the present case is also entitled to the same relief. He submits that the Apex Court has not granted any interim relief to the Opposite Party and in that case as rather compelled the Builder/Appellant, the present Opposite Party herein, to deposit the entire amount as directed by the NCDRC in that case. He therefore submits that as per the order dated 26.03.2024 of this Commission, the Opposite Party has not come forward for the deposit of the amount and has opted to proceed for final hearing in the matter.
Responding to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Complainant Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, learned Senior Counsel, urged that the Commission may take notice of the order passed on 03.01.2023 while appreciating the other arguments in this case. The order dated 03.01.2023 recites as under:
"Dated: 03.01.2023 ORDER Heard the Counsel for the Parties.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties carrying the Authority Letter at the suggestion of the Learned Counsel for the Complainant fairly agrees to file copy of the initial Brochure issued for the project within three weeks with copy to the Learned Counsel for the Complainant. IA/5346/2021 and IA/9999/2021 are allowed.Page 11 of 31
Both Parties to file short synopsis of arguments if not already done before the next date fixed for hearing. List the matter on 13.04.2023 for final hearing." He points out that IA/5346/2021 was filed praying for taking certain additional documents on record and also file additional evidence. This application was allowed.
He then points out that IA/9999/2021 was filed praying for the following reliefs:
a) Take on record the Writ Petition No. 6187/2018 pending adjudication before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana as additional evidence;
(b) Grant liberty to the Opposite Party to place on record the correct set of facts and additional documents as and when the need arises;
(c) As the grievance of the Complainant arises from the development and construction of 24 mtr. road, which is an issue being adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, this Hon'ble Commission is requested to await the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 6187/2018, as the same will have a bearing on adjudication of the present dispute;
(d) Pass any such order(s) as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
It is urged that since the said application was also allowed, therefore in terms of prayer clause (c) therein, the Commission has accepted the request to await the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 6187/2018 stated to have been filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court which is still pending wherein the following reliefs have been prayed for:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that complete record of the case may be called for and after perusing the same this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue:
(a) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other writ directing the respondents to acquire land, for the construction and development of the "24 mtr wide Internal Sectoral Road" falling outside the licensed area of the Group Housing Colony situated at land ad-measuring 22.123 acres in village;
Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon in residential Sector 104 of Page 12 of 31 Gurgaon - Manesar Urban Complex, so as to ensure that necessary services viz water, sewerage, etc. are provided to the resident of the group housing colony and integrated development is ensured around the group housing colony as envisaged in the act of 1975, in a time bound manner.
(b) Writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to take necessary steps, in terms of the Letter of Intent dated 03.10.2011, to acquire land and construct the 24 mtr. Internal Sectoral Road;
(c) Writ of declaration and/or any other writ declaring the impugned policy dated 21.08.2015 issued by respondent no. 2, vide Memo.No. Misc.-454-C/2015/218 for land aggregation and integrated infrastructure development along 24m/18m wide internal sector planning road cannot have retrospective effect and cannot be made applicable on the petitioner as the same is contradictory to the terms and conditions of the letter of intent dated 03.10.2011 and the license dated 07.12.2011 and hence not binding on the petitioners.
(d) Writ of declaration and/or any other writ declaring that the Impugned Policy dated 21.08.2015 is ultravires the Act of 1975 to the extent, as mentioned in paragraph 2.0 of the impugned policy dated 21.08.2015, that the construction and provision of 24m/18m wide internal sectoral plan roads proposed in the Sectoral Plan do not form part of the external development works as defined under act of 1975 and issue a writ of declaration or any other writ declaring the construction and development of 24m/18m sectoral road are covered under Section 2(g) of Act of 1975 and hence the responsibility of the respondents.
(e) Writ of Mandamus and/or any other writ directing the respondents to provide connectivity of the project developed by the petitioners on land ad-measuring 22.123 acres in village; Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon in residential Sector 104 of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex to 150 mtr wide Northern Periphery Road, also known as Dwarka Expressway, by the proposed 24 mtr. wide road and/or any other 24 mtr. wide Internal Sectoral Road.
(f) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
(g) Cost of writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner;
Page 13 of 31(h) exempt issuance of advance notices to the respondents as required under the Writ Rules.
(1) Further filing of certified copies of the Annexures be exempted and photocopies of Annexure of the same be taken on record in the interest of justice."
It is submitted that even though no orders have been passed in the said Writ Petition, either interim or final, still the matter is pending adjudication with regard to the non-construction of the 24 metre wide road falling outside the project of the Complainant for connecting it with Dwarka Expressway. It is this issue which has been raised in the present complaint as a deficiency, which cannot be a deficiency or even otherwise as is evident from the record of the said Writ Petition pending before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The same issue is directly connected with the nature of the grievance raised in the present complaint. He therefore submits that even though that the Opposite Parties have already constructed the 24 meter wide road which was to be done within the project as per the licence granted to it, the non-construction of the road falling outside the project of the Opposite Party for linking it to the Dwarka Expressway is neither the obligation of the Opposite Party nor the same is within its control as it is the concerned collector who has to resolve the issue. In spite of having applied and requested for the construction of the same, it has not been carried out for reasons known to the Collector and accordingly in order to protect the project and the interest of the Complainants the Opposite Party itself has filed a Writ Petition as indicated above that is pending adjudication.
He therefore submits that allowing of IA/9999/2021 by the order indicated above should therefore be taken into account firstly either by deferring the matter or otherwise taking it into consideration at the time of hearing.
He has then urged that the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) on which parity is claimed by the Complainant, is in jeopardy and therefore also the matter should be deferred awaiting the outcome thereof as the issue is engaging the attention of the Apex Court in an appeal filed under the act. He has referred to paragraph 41 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr. (2004) 2 SCC 747 which is extracted hereinunder:
Page 14 of 31"41. In the aforementioned cases, this Court failed to take into consideration that once an appeal is filed before this Court and the same is entertained, the judgment of the High Court or the Tribunal is in jeopardy. The subject-matter of the lis unless determined by the last court, cannot be said to have attained finality. Grant of stay of operation of the judgment may not be of much relevance once this Court grants special leave and decides to hear the matter on merit."
It is therefore urged by him that the present matter should be deferred and the applicability of the order of this Commission in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) should not be taken to have any impact or binding effect as a precedent in this case. He has also urged that what was promised in the brochure was a 24 meter wide road which has been constructed in so far as the project area of the Opposite Party is concerned. He submits that there is no deficiency and as a matter of fact the photographs would indicate the existence of the said road. He has invited the attention of the Bench to paragraph 4 of IA/5346/2021 and also the photographs as indicated in paragraph 4(g).
He has also invited the attention of the Bench to the licence granted by the Director General Town and Country Planning Haryana dated 03.10.2011 and has referred to clause 3, 4 and 13 thereof that has been filed along with IA/5346/2021. He submits that the Opposite Party has fulfilled the entire undertaking under the aforesaid clauses and has already constructed the road for transferring it to the Government free of cost. He therefore submits that this promise made in the brochure has been complied with entirely in so far as the project land is concerned, hence there is no deficiency as alleged.
He further submits that in the brochure and the layout plan represented to the flat buyers, the Opposite Party was legitimately expecting that the Government and other competent authorities were intending and proceeding to construct the link road up to the Dwarka Expressway. He submits that the road is actually available providing passage to the project without any obstruction. The said link road up to the Dwarka Expressway Highway is open and is being utilised and there is no complaint by almost more than 600 flat buyers who have already occupied their respective flats and are using the same passage for which efforts are being made by the Opposite Party to be expedited and completed as is evident from the fact that the Opposite party has filed the Writ Petition way back Page 15 of 31 in 2018 to advance this cause. Nonetheless, according to him when the road is already existing and the connectivity exists, the Complainant cannot claim any deficiency in service so far as the answering respondent is concerned.
Since this case was specially fixed at 09:30 AM in the hope that it would be concluded by 10:30 AM, the same could not be done due to shortage of time as the learned Counsel wanted further time to advance submissions for another half an hour.
As agreed between the learned Counsel for the parties, let the matter be listed on 03.05.2024 at 09.30 AM.
14. Mr. Makkar has urged that since IA No.9999 of 2021 had been allowed whereby the Commission itself had adjourned the matter keeping in view the pendency of the Writ Petition and keeping in view of the pendency of the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) a request was made for adjourning the same.
15. Further submissions were raised that in fact another connecting road is still available providing passage to the residents without any obstruction/objection which is being used by more than 60 persons. These submissions were recorded in the order dated 09.04.2024 which has been extracted hereinabove.
16. In between there were communications of some negotiations between the parties. The matter was adjourned on 03.05.2024 but in the absence of any settlement having been arrived at, the case was once again proceeded with on 21.05.2024 when the following order was passed:
Page 16 of 31At the outset learned Counsel inform that no agreement could be arrived at till now and therefore the hearing of the case may proceed.
Mr. Makkar, therefore, advanced his submissions contending that in view of the order passed on 03.01.2023 whereby IA/5346/2021 and IA/9999/2021 were allowed, it is appropriate that the hearing of this complaint should await any orders or disposal of Writ Petition No.6187 of 2018 that has been noted by the Bench in the order dated 09.04.2024. He submits that no application has been moved by the Complainant to set aside or recall or modify the order dated 03.01.2023 and hence the hearing of this Complaint should be accordingly deferred.
He has then urged that the allegation of deficiency of non-providing of the 24 metre road is untenable for the reason that the promise of the said road has been fulfilled in so far as the project area of the Opposite Party is concerned and which is in conformity with the master plan that provides for the road to pass through the project. The submission is that so far as the road within the project of the Opposite Party is concerned, that has been finalized and there is no dispute about the 24-metre road wide existing within the complex. However, the road which is extended beyond the project area and was to be provided by the authorities to connect it with the Dwarka Expressway is not within the control of the Opposite Party and it is for this reason that the Opposite Party has filed the Writ Petition No.6187 of 2018 for compelling the town planning and other authorities to proceed to execute and construct the road connecting it with the Dwarka Expressway.
Mr. Makkar has urged that the letter of intent dated 03.10.2011 as well as the license granted on 07.12.2011 are documents placed on record along with IA/5346/2021. Clause 3, Clause 4 and Clause 13 of the letter of intent dated 03.10.2011 obligated the answering respondent to construct the 24-metre road within its project and also to make payments with regard to the connecting road that falls outside the project. It is urged that there is no default on the part of the answering respondent and all the conditions have been fulfilled including Clause 3 of the terms of the license dated 07.12.2011. It is thus evident that there is absolutely no breach to fulfill the promise of providing the 24-metre-wide road as promised. He has emphasized that there is no shortfall in the effort or the fulfillment of the terms and conditions and in such a situation the allegation of deficiency against the Opposite Party is not substantiated. He has also invited the attention of the Bench to the photographs appended along with IA/5346/2021 to urge that the existence of the 24-metre-wide road within the project is no longer in doubt.Page 17 of 31
Coming to the issue of the allegation of delay in delivery of possession, Mr. Makkar has invited the attention of the Bench to the letter of allotment dated 30.12.2012 followed by the agreement dated 25.03.2013 coupled with Clause and Clause W referred to in the agreement to urge that the completion period is 49 months from the date of allotment. It is therefore submitted that counting from the date of allotment, that is 30.12.2012, the period of 49 months comes to an end on 29.01.2017. There is a further stipulation of a grace period of six months which brings the date of completion and handing over possession to 29.07.2017.
He therefore submits that within the aforesaid timeline the occupancy certificate was obtained on 07.04.2017 and the offer of possession was made in writing to the Complainant on 29.06.2017. It is therefore submitted that there is no delay at all in the offer of possession to the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant cannot claim any delay compensation from the Opposite Party. He submits that the other two remaining issues on which he would be advancing his submissions is with regard to the allegation of deficiency in water supply and electricity connection and on the issue of non-readiness of the club house as promised. The arguments could not conclude today. As prayed, learned counsel for the parties agree for the matter being heard on 18.07.2024 at 09.30 AM.
17. The submissions advanced were recorded and the matter was fixed for another date. With the rearrangement of Benches, the matter was directed to come up before the appropriate Bench and then once again the matter was heard on 16.12.2024 where certain decisions of this Commission and the interim orders passed by the Apex Court against the order of this Commission were noted. The order dated 16.12.2024 is extracted herein under:
Heard Mr. Makkar, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no.1, who informs that with regard to the same project orders were passed by this Commission in CC No. 1250 of 2018 (Vaibhav Saha & Anr. Vs. Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd.) decided on Page 18 of 31 05.09.2024. The complaint was allowed at par with the case of Rajiv Singhal Vs. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr. (CC No. 278 of 2018) decided on 21.10.2022. The said order of this Commission has been assailed in Civil Appeal Diary No.47261 of 2024 and the following order has been passed therein on 25.10.2024:
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Shrey Kapoor, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents.
Interim stay of the operation of the impugned order until further orders.
However, the appellant herein shall deposit the entire principle amount within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit being made before this Court, the Registry of this Court shall invest the said amount in any fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank for an initial period of six months subject to automatic renewal.
It is needless to observe that if the said amount is not deposited within the aforesaid time-frame, the interim order of stay shall stand vacated automatically."
Another Coordinate Bench of this Commission in CC No. 976 of 2018 (Mrs. Rohini Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. M/s Godrej Premium Builder Pvt. Ltd. (amended as Godrej Projects Development Ltd.) has allowed the complaint on 11.10.2024 stated to be on the same lines and a copy of the order has been placed before the Bench. The said order and other orders in the batch are also stated to have been challenged in Civil Appeals No. 14421, 14422 and 14423 of 2024. It is stated that there is an interim order passed therein by the Apex Court as well but the copy of the order has not been uploaded on the website and therefore is not available. Let the same be produced by the next date fixed.
It may be pointed out that on 26.03.2024 orders were passed indicating another interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Singhal (Supra) where there was a direction while entertaining the appeal that the appellant shall deposit the amount which has been directed by the NCDRC to be paid to the respondents.
Page 19 of 31In the order dated 26.03.2024 it was observed that the opposite party will have to make the deposit of the amount and therefore a week's time was sought to have instructions in the matter.
After instructions it was stated at the bar that the opposite party has not agreed to the deposit of the amount and accordingly the matter proceeded for final hearing as recorded in the order dated 09.04.2024.
Today when the matter has been taken up, the aforesaid orders that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the opposite party have been placed and it is also intimated that the case of Vaibhav Saha (Supra) is posted before a Bench of the Apex Court in the tentative List for tomorrow.
Be that as it may, the order which has been produced in the case of Vaibhav Saha (Supra) also records that there shall be a deposit of the entire principal amount within a period of four weeks. Till date the opposite party has not come forward for any deposit as recorded earlier but Mr. Makkar prays that he may be granted a couple of days more to seek instructions on this issue.
Put up on Friday, the 20th December, 2024 at 2.00 p.m.
18. The Commission, therefore, on the argument of the Opposite Parties that the matter may be adjourned, had called upon them to make a deposit as an interim measure in terms of the interim orders passed by the Apex Court in the other cases. However, the same was resisted by the Opposite Parties and this issue having been contested by Mr. Makkar, it became imperative to pass a detailed order on 24.12.2024. The said order records the decision rendered by this Commission in the case of Godrej Projects Development Ltd. vs. Vaibhav Saha & Anr. (supra) dated 05.09.2024 in respect of the same subject matter and the project and other orders. This Page 20 of 31 Commiission recorded the following operative order which is extracted hereinunder:
Another Order in a batch of Appeals filed by the Opposite Party before the Apex Court namely Civil Appeal Diary No
(s).55067/2024 Godrej Projects Development Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kant Bansal and other connected matters, the following Order was passed on 10.12.2024 which is extracted herein under:
"Issue notice to the respondents.
Delay condoned.
Interim stay of the operation of the impugned order until further orders. However, the appellant(s) herein shall deposit the entire principal amount within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit being made before this Court, the Registry of this Court shall invest the said amount in any fixed deposit account in a nationalised bank for an initial period of six months subject to automatic renewal.
It is needless to observe that if the said amount is not deposited within the aforesaid time frame, the interim order of stay shall stand vacated automatically.
Tag with Civil Appeal (Diary) No.47261 of 2024. The pendency of these Civil Appeals before this Court would not come in the way of the respondenthome buyers seeking possession of their respective flats. In case any such request is made by the respondents to the appellant(s) herein, the appellant(s) shall consider the said request and make suitable arrangements for handing over 3 possession of the respective flats to such respondents."
Relying on the interim Orders of the Apex Court referred to above, Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Makkar has submitted that the Opposite Parties be permitted to deposit the principal amount as directed in the case of Vaibhav Saha and the hearing may be adjourned awaiting the decision in the Apex Court, as the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) is also tentatively once again listed very shortly.
The Opposite Parties therefore as of now, as against their stand earlier of not depositing any amount and proceeding with Page 21 of 31 the hearing, seem to seek an adjournment for the purpose of hearing on an offer of deposit of only the principal amount and not the entire claimed amount.
As observed above, the interim Order that was passed in Rajiv Singhal (supra) and has been noticed earlier in the Orders passed in this Commission, the Apex Court had directed the deposit of the entire amount which was of course the amount awarded, including the principal amount together with interest. The Opposite Parties, on the basis of the subsequent Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby interim Orders are for deposit of the principal amount, have come forward praying for interim Orders to be passed to that extent and are seeking a deferment of the hearing for the time being.
In the present case, the Complainant has come up praying for the refund of the entire amount paid by the Complainant to the tune of Rs.89,24,445/- as disclosed in Paragraph 7 coupled with an interest @ 18% which as on the date of the filing of the Complaint was calculated as Rs.53,41,751/-. Thus the entire claim is in respect of the entire paid amount coupled with the interest calculated @ 18% which according to the Complainant would stand increased for the past seven years during the pendency of this Complaint.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the attempt of the Opposite Parties is to seek deferment of the hearing awaiting final orders of the Apex Court subject to the deposit of the principal amount only as claimed by the Complainant and have no intent to deposit any further amount while seeking such deferment.
The first issue is as to whether such deferment can be permitted, keeping in view the Order passed by this Commission on 03.01.2023. In our opinion only an indulgence was granted to the Opposite Party and since there are no Orders till date by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the Opposite Party, we find no justification for any deferment on that count in future. The fate of the Complainant cannot be left hanging in balance unendingly when the Parties have already exchanged their pleadings and the matter in fact is to be heard in the light of the final decisions of Coordinate Benches in this very subject matter for the same project and similar claims. This Complaint having been filed in 2017, therefore, cannot be justifiably called upon to await any Page 22 of 31 Orders from the Punjab and Haryana High Court about which there is no opinion as on date. Consequently, as is evident from the facts pleaded, there are at least three Coordinate Bench decisions which lend support to the Complainant. It is correct that these matters have been entertained before the Apex Court but the Opposite Parties have been directed to deposit of the entire decretal amount in Rajiv Singhal's Case (supra) where interest has also been granted alongwith refund of the principal amount. In the other cases subsequently filed, it is correct that the interim direction by the Apex Court is only for deposit of the principal amount and not for the entire decretal amount.
It goes without saying that all these Complainants have been waiting for long and are now seeking refund, and therefore if the Opposite Parties are seeking deferment due to the pendency of their Appeals before the Apex Court, then to protect the interest of the Complainant, the deposit has to be made. The terms and conditions of the deposit in the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) are evident from the Order passed therein.
We therefore, in the light of the facts of the present case, find it equitable and expedient that since the Opposite Party is seeking an adjournment awaiting a final decision before the Apex Court in the Petitions referred to above, it would be justified to call upon the Opposite Parties to deposit the amount of Rs.89,24,445/- together with 9% interest with effect from the date of the filing of the Complaint till date before this Commission within one month from today and the said amount shall be invested in a short term fixed deposit by the Commission, to be renewed during the pendency of this Commission. This direction is interim subject to any further orders. Subject to the above deposit, the hearing of this Complaint shall stand deferred till 15.05.2025 or else it shall proceed to be heard finally on that date.
List on 15.05.2025.
19. The Opposite Parties did not make any deposit and consequently IA No.4132 of 2025 was moved on behalf of the Complainant urging to decide Page 23 of 31 the matter and proceed to pass an order as the Opposite Parties have not complied with the direction of deposit as quoted above.
20. On 23.05.2025, it was intimated that the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) has been finally decided under the terms as extracted in our order dated 23.05.2025 which is reproduced hereinuhder:
This matter was fixed today but, on account of one of the Members demitting office today, the Bench is available only till 3.30 p.m. and therefore the matter has to be adjourned. However, Mr. Makkar, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no.1, has invited the attention of the Bench to the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 8353 of 2022 (Godrej Projects Development Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Singhal & Anr.) which is extracted hereunder "1. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the matter is settled between the parties and the amount as desired by the respondent has already been paid.
The said submission is not disputed by Mr.Akshay Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. In view of the above, the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 13th March 2023 is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant with accrued interest.
3. In view of the above, the Appeal stands disposed of. However, adverse observation if any, made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the appellant in the impugned order shall stand expunged.
4. All pending applications including application for impleadment are disposed of."
Consequently, the matter will have to be heard keeping in view the observations made in the previous orders.
Let the case be adjourned for 18.08.2025.
Page 24 of 3121. It is then that the matter came up for final hearing on 26.01.2026 when Mr. Makkar again reiterated that so far as the Opposite Parties are concerned, their prayer to deposit the principal amount without any interest be considered and await the decisions of the Apex Court where other similar Appeals have been filed arising out of the order passed by this Commission in relation to the same subject matter. He has referred to the order dated 07.02.2025 and the order in Civil Appeal No.55854 of 2025 dated 04.11.2025 apart from the previously contested matters in the case of Godrej Projects Development Ltd. vs. Ravi Kant Bansal & Ors. And Godrej Projects Developemnt Ltd. Vs. Vaibhav Saha & Ann Orders have been tendered before the court to urge that the only direction by the Apex Court is to deposit the entire principal amount and, therefore, the same can be permitted instead of a direction to deposit it along with interest @ 9% p.a.
22. We may point out that the order passed by us on 24.12.2024 has neither been challenged nor its correctness is under question before any higher Forum and since it is a detailed considered order, we find no jurisdiction to modify the same in order to facilitate an adjournment in the matter till the disposal of the other cases before the Apex Court.
Page 25 of 3123. However, Mr. Makkar seems to be correct in his submission that the order passed in the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) that has been relied upon by learned Counsel for the Complainant cannot be now made the basis of any assessment of this case as the binding impact of the decision in the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) stands diluted and has been diffused in view of the order passed by the Apex Court finally disposing of the matter on 13.05.2025 that has been extracted in our order dated 23.05.2025 noted above. We are also of the view that an order passed in an Appeal by the Apex Court is subject to the principle of merger inasmuch as under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which applies to the dispute involved herein, Section 23 provides for a regular Appeal under the Act itself before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is a statutory Appeal under the Act and the finality of orders of this Commission in terms of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are subject to Appeal. Section 24 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extracted hereinunder:
Finality of orders. -- Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final.
24. Consequently, the order of this Commission in Rajiv Singhal (supra) was subject to Appeal and, therefore, its finality stood merged with the Page 26 of 31 observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 13.05.2025 where the matter has been reported to have been settled by way of a compromise and further, adverse observations, if any, made by the NCDRC against the Opposite Parties have been expunged. This Commission has, therefore, to abide by the spirit of the said order which categorically directs the expunging of adverse observations. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the observations and findings recorded in the order in the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra) by this Commission are no longer available as a precedent so as to press into service for deciding the present dispute, even though we may point out that the other decisions relating to the same project still continue to hold the field and the Appeals filed against them are still pending before the Apex Court that will remain binding.
25. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter and, therefore, we have proceeded to hear it finally.
26. Mr. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the Complainant while advancing his submissions urged that the two major issues are with regard to delay and the non-completion of the construction and more primarily the absence of the 24 meter connecting wide road that could not be constructed.Page 27 of 31
27. Mr. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the Complainant, therefore, submits that in the other cases, the present Complainant is also entitled to refund at parity and the Opposite Party itself has settled the matter with Rajiv Singhal. Thereafter, the Apex Court disposed of the same on 13.05.2025.
He, therefore, submits that the deficiency continues to persist and in such circumstances, the Complaint deserves to be allowed.
28. Mr. Makkar urged that with the timeline and the dates given and in view of the limited arguments raised by Mr. Kaushik on the two issues referred to above, the offer of possession was made on 29.06.2017. This offer was in tune with the clause 4.2 of the Builder Buyer Agreement which promises the readiness of occupancy within 49 months of the issuance of the Allotment Letter and is the tentative completion period along with the grace period of 6 months. He submits that this timeline in the present case has nowhere been violated and on a simple calculation, he submits that the letter of Offer of Possession is within time. He, therefore, counters the calculation of 36 months by the Complainant to be absolutely incorrect and without any basis.
29. On this issue, we find the arguments of Mr. Makkar to be arithmetically correct insofar as it relates to the issuance of the Letter of Possession within the timeline is concerned. However, in our opinion, the Page 28 of 31 question is as to whether the Opposite Parties offered the possession of the unit booked by the Complainant complete in all respects to him or not.
30. The answer in our assessment has to be in the negative inasmuch as admittedly the road for access to the project which is a 24 meter wide road connecting same to the Dwarka Expressway has not been provided as promised till date.
31. The defence of the Opposite Parties is that according to the terms of the license and the Letter of Intent, it is the state authorities and the development authorities who have to provide such road for which acquisition had to take place. If there is a failure on their part, the same cannot be attributed as a deficiency on the Opposite Parties.
32. This issue cannot be a ground or any excuse relating to avoid an integral provision of the project that was promised in the brochure. The accessibility is thus eclipsed as per the promise made. It is the obligation of the Opposite Parties to have provided the road and the Complainant is fully justified in demanding refund if it has not been provided for proper access to the unit and its connectivity to the Dwarka Expressway apart from the alleged defects in the Complaint. The said provision is vital and one of the major components of the promise that had attracted the Page 29 of 31 Complainant to purchase the unit. He is, therefore, well within his rights to withdraw from the same where the connectivity is nowhere in sight. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Complaint deserves to be allowed as the Complainant cannot be held to await the completion or otherwise availability of connectivity of the 24 meter wide road which the Opposite Parties had promised while offering the allotment to the Complainant wayback in the year 2012. It is down the line 14 years that the Complainant has been waiting for the same with no end in sight. The mere pendency of the Writ Petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court with no orders therein and the fact of non-existence of the promised road, therefore, is a deficiency which is clearly attributable to the Opposite Parties. The contention of the Opposite Parties that there is another link provided through which other occupants are accessing the project is to divert the issue. The Complainant has filed photographs thereof which is some sort of katcha road and this compulsion cannot be the removal of the deficiency of providing the road as promised by the Opposite Parties.
33. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the Complaint with the following directions for refund to the Complainant keeping in view that this very issue has already been dealt with by this Commission in several cases leaving aside the decision in the case of Rajiv Singhal (supra). We, therefore, Page 30 of 31 allow this Complaint directing the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount received by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant within one month from today along with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon w.e.f. the date of the respective payments. In the event of default, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% p.a.
34. The Complaint is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
( A.P. SAHI, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
( BHARATKUMAR ™[JDYA) ASHA/Court-1 Page 31 of 31