State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhbir Singh Gouchwal vs Imperia Structures Ltd. on 20 November, 2025
C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 13.07.2023
Date of hearing: 11.11.2025
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 97/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL,
S/O MR. RAM KISHAN
RESIDENTS OF:
R/O H. NO.23 HAUZ KHAS VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI - 110016.
ALSO AT:
BLOCK 1, 11TH FLOOR,
IMPERIA M-BLOCK - 1,
11TH FLOOR, IMEPRIA MIRAGE,
YAMUNA EXPRESS WAY,
GREATER NOIDA, GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201301.
(Through: Mr. Rishi Bharadwaj and Mr.
Abhiesumat Gupta, Advocates)
...Complainant
VERSUS
IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
A-25, MOHAN CO-OPEARTIVE,
INDUSTRIES ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEAR SARITA VIHAR METRO STATION,
NEW DELHI - 110044.
(Through: Rishi Kapoor & Associates)
...Opposite party
RETURNED PAGE 1 OF 7
C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMAIR, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Complainant in person and Mr. Ishan Parashar, Counsel for
the complainant appeared through VC, Mr. Abhisumat,
Counsel for the complainant appeared physically.
Ms. Shraddha Agrawal, Counsel for the Opposite Party (Enrl.
No. D/13171/22, Email: [email protected])
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, (PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite Party and has prayed the following:
a) Direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 13.4.2015, till realization of the amount, to the complainant;
b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards alongwith 18% per annum w.e.f 3.11.2014 towards the amount which the complainant has already paid to the Opposite Party;
c) Award the cost of litigation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant.
d) Any other orders / directions which this Hon'ble Commission deems, fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant booked an apartment comprising 3 bedrooms having a super area of 1350 sq. ft. with the Opposite Party in the project titled "Mirage Homes" situated at Gautam Budh Nagar, Yamuna Expressway, Greater Noida, for a total consideration of Rs.56,52,750/-. The Opposite Party vide provisional allotment letter dated 27.03.2015, allotted the apartment bearing No. 1140 in the aforesaid project. Thereafter, the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 27.03.2015 was also executed between the parties. As per the said agreement, the Opposite Party was to hand RETURNED PAGE 2 OF 7 C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025 MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
over possession of the said apartment within 48 months plus a grace period of 3 months from the issuance of the confirmation letter. However, the Opposite Party has failed to hand over possession of the said apartment to the Complainant till date.
3. Furthermore, the Complainant had opted for the construction-linked payment plan and paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of booking on 03.11.2014. More so, on the assurance of the Opposite Party, the Complainant also availed a housing loan from M/s Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. towards payment of the said apartment. A tripartite agreement was executed among all three parties, whereby it was agreed that the interest on the loan would be paid by the Opposite Party till possession of the apartment and the loan amount would be payable in installments by the Complainant after handing over of possession. The Opposite Party also issued an NOC for mortgaging the apartment in favour of M/s Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. A a result, the Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.25,17,687/- to the Opposite Party, including a loan amount of Rs.22,50,000/-. However, the Opposite Party failed to fulfil its obligations under the tripartite agreement with respect to payment of interest to the said housing finance company, due to which overdue charges were levied for default in payment.
4. Additionally, the Complainant visited the project site several times and noticed that the construction of the apartment was significantly behind schedule. The Complainant again visited the site in the year 2022 and shocked to find that the construction was still incomplete even after the lapse of several years from the expected date of possession. Aggrieved by the acts of the Opposite Party, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 25.03.2023 seeking refund along with interest, but to no avail. Thus, the Complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
RETURNED PAGE 3 OF 7 C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
5. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction as per Notification dated 30.12.2021 under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2021, since the amount paid by the Complainant does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-. He further submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainant is frivolous, misconceived, malafide, and an abuse of the process of this Commission, as the Complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. The Complainant had invested in the said property after duly reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 27.03.2015. More so, the Opposite Party had given 120 days to the Complainant to decide whether they were interested in execution of the said agreement, which makes it amply clear that the Complainant, after reading the terms and conducting due diligence, entered into the agreement, which is binding on both parties.
6. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that any delay was due to force majeure circumstances beyond the control of the Opposite Party, as specified in Clause 28 of the said agreement. Lastly, he submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
7. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
8. The Complainant has filed his written arguments ad reiterating allegation made in the complaint.
RETURNED PAGE 4 OF 7 C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
9. The Opposite Party has also filed its written arguments, wherein it has again denied the allegations made by the Complainant and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part.
10. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
11. Before delving into the merits of the present case, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party.
12. The preliminary issue for consideration before us is whether this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.
13. To deal with the issue in the present application, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 47(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission, says as follows:
"Section 47: Jurisdiction of State Commission.
47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;
(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State;"
14. Analysis of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this commission shall have the pecuniary jurisdiction in cases where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore.
15. We further deem it appropriate refer to consumer protection rule' 2021:-
4. Jurisdiction of State Commission.--
RETURNED PAGE 5 OF 7 C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds fifty lakh but does not exceed two crore rupees.
16. From the above, it is clear that the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was amended to the extent that the value of goods or services paid as consideration must exceed fifty lakh rupees but not exceed two crore rupees, as per Notification dated 30.12.2021 issued under the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021.
17. It is also appropriate to refer to the Consumer Case no. 833 of 2020 titled as M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & 3 Ors. decided on 28.08.2020, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that:
"10. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/ taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations."
18. A perusal of the above well settled law reflects that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines the pecuniary jurisdiction of any Consumer Commission on the basis of the consideration amount paid by the complainant for the services availed from the Opposite Party.
19. Returning to the fact of the present matter, it is clear that the complaint filed on 13.07.2023 i.e., after the enforcement of the 2021 amendment. Therefore, the Consumer Protection Rules, 2021 shall apply to this case.
RETURNED PAGE 6 OF 7 C. NO. 97/2023 D.O.D. : 20.11.2025
MR. SUKHBIR SINGH GOUCHWAL VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
Moreover, the Complainant has admitted in paragraph 15 of the complaint that the total consideration paid to the Opposite Party was Rs.25,17,687/-. Hence, it is evident that the aforesaid amount paid as consideration does not meet the pecuniary threshold prescribed under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2021.
20. Resultantly, this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.
21. Accordingly, in view of the above, the present complaint is returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, with liberty to the Complainant to file it before the appropriate District Commission having the requisite pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on merits.
22. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
23. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
24. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
20.11.2025 LR-ZA RETURNED PAGE 7 OF 7