State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chander Mohan Goyal vs M/S Uppal Housing Pvt. Limited, Through ... on 16 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/107/2023
CHANDER MOHAN GOYAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - ARE R/O I-14, MARBLE ARCH, APARTMENTS, SECTOR 13, MANI
MAJRA, U.T. CHANDIGARH ,CHANDIGARH.
RENUKA GOYAL WIFE OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN GOYAL.
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO I-14 MARBLE ARCH APARTMENTS ,CHANDIGARH.
SH. NAKUL GOYAL S/O SH. CHANDER MOHAN GOYAL THROUGH ATTORNEY
CHANDIGARH MOHAN GOYAL.
PRESENT ADDRESS - I-14, MARBLE ARCH, APARTMENTS, MANIMAJRA ,CHANDIGARH.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S UPPAL HOUSING PVT. LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MR. MUNISH UPPAL,
PRESENT ADDRESS - M/S UPPAL HOUSING PVT. LIMITED,1ST FLOOR, PRAGATI VIHAR,
BHISHM PITAMAH MARG, NBCC TOWER, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110003.
,CHANDIGARH.
MR. MUNISH UPPAL, CHARIMAN, M/S UPPAL HOUSING PVT. LIMITED,
PRESENT ADDRESS - M/S UPPAL HOUSING PVT. LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, PRAGATI VIHAR,
BHISHM PITAMAH MARG, NBCC TOWER, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110003
,CHANDIGARH.
MR. SANJEEV JAIN, DIRECTOR, M/S UPPAL HOUSING PVT. LIMITED,
PRESENT ADDRESS - D-64, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI. ,CHANDIGARH.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
NIHARIKA GOEL (Advocate)
DATED: 16/07/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint No. : 107 of 2023 Date of Institution : 18.09.2023 Date of Decision : 16.07.2025
1. Chander Mohan Goyal S/o Mansa Ram age 69 years
2. Smt. Renuka Goyal wife of Sh. Chander Mohan Goyal.
3. Sh. Nakul Goyal S/o Sh. Chander Mohan Goyal through attorney Chandigarh Mohan Goyal.
All the above three are R/o 1-14, Marble Arch, Apartments, Sector 13, Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.
.....Complainants Versus
1. M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Limited, through its Chairman Mr. Munish Uppal, 1st Floor, Pragati Vihar, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, NBCC Tower, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Mr. Munish Uppal, Chairman, M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Limited, 1st Floor, Pragati Vihar, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, NBCC Tower, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Jain, Director, M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Limited, D-64, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
4. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
.....Opposite Parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Present:- Ms.Niharika Goel, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh.Dheeraj Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3.
Sh.Ashish Rawal, Advocate for opposite party no.4-Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (on VC).
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT It is the case of the complainants that they had purchased Flat No. 1-14 in Tower-I, Uppals Marble Arch, from opposite parties no.1 to 3, relying on the latter's representations and publicized brochures showcasing the project as a luxurious, transparent, and lawfully constructed housing society. The flat was purchased jointly by complainants No.1 and 2 (husband and wife) and complainant No.3 (their son), who resides abroad, and is thus represented in this complaint through a GPA held by Complainant No.1 (Annexure C-2). The project site, measuring 26,109.24 sq. yds. in Pocket Nos. 2 and 3, Manimajra, Chandigarh, was auctioned to opposite parties no.1 to 3 by the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh via allotment letter dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure C-3), and the site fetched a massive amount of Rs. 108.01 crores. Based on the brochures and assurances provided (Annexure C-4), the complainants entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure C-5) and took possession of the flat on 09.08.2010 (Annexure C-6) after paying a sum of Rs.1,47,62,770/- including registration fees, with the sale deed executed on 26.10.2010 (Annexure C-7). It was always understood by the complainants that the project was lawfully sanctioned, free of encumbrances, and did not include any EWS (Economically Weaker Section) or two-bedroom flats, as no such details were mentioned in the brochures, sale deed, or original sanctioned building plans. However, to their shock and dismay, the complainants came to know about serving of Show Cause Notice dated 07.03.2016 (Annexure C-8) by the competent authority and subsequently, an order dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure C-9) was passed, directing the sealing of several apartments, including five flats in Tower-I, to construct EWS housing. The EWS flats, initially planned for the top floors, were later shifted to Tower-I through revised plans, unilaterally got sanctioned by opposite parties no.1 to 3 in the year 2010 without informing the allottees. As a result, the complainants now face the grim reality of residing in a building intended for premium 3 and 4-bedroom apartments, which is now being modified to accommodate five EWS flats per original apartment, significantly degrading the structural integrity, increasing the burden on sewage, water, and electricity infrastructure, and severely affecting the quality of life. The complainants, particularly senior citizens, are distressed due to the lack of sunlight in many flats (84 out of 168 have no sunlight), and feel deceived by the tall claims made by opposite parties no.1 to 3 regarding the standard and layout of the project. The non-disclosure of such major changes, failure to obtain occupancy and completion certificates even after 15 years, and concealment of crucial facts amount to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The complainants have also spent an additional Rs.36,00,000/- on renovations and are now subject to continuous harassment and uncertainty, especially due to overburdened infrastructure, security concerns, and overcrowding. The entire premise of purchasing a high-end, peaceful, and law-compliant home has been defeated, and opposite parties no.1 to 3, who sold the project at peak market prices and subsequently abandoned it, must be held accountable and directed to compensate the complainants for the mental, physical, emotional, and financial losses suffered. Thus, this complaint has been filed by the complainants with following prayer:-
".......It is therefore respectfully prayed that the present complaint may kindly be allowed and opposite parties no.1 to 3 may be directed to compensate the complainant by making the compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and the complainant may also be granted interest @9% of the amount of Rs.1,47,62,770/- from the date of payments till realization. The complainant may also be granted litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/-..."
2. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 in their written reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to sale of the unit in question to the complainants; execution of agreement, sale deed etc. took various objections/pleas that the present complaint filed by the complainants before this Commission is wholly misconceived, baseless, and untenable as it amounts to an abuse of the process of law; the issue raised in this matter has already been addressed by this Hon'ble Commission in the consumer complaint titled 'Marble Arch (Owners) Resident Welfare Association vs Uppal Housing Pvt Ltd.', filed by Marble Archiva Residents Welfare Association (MARWA), of which the complainants are admitted members; the complainants have deliberately suppressed this judgment and other material facts, failing to disclose them in the present complaint, warranting dismissal on this ground alone; the complainants have filed Civil Writ Petition No.20393/2020 titled Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which also deals with the issues raised herein, but this fact has been concealed from this Commission, warranting dismissal; this complaint is also liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties as opposite parties no. 2 & 3; this complaint is barred by limitation since the Apartment Buyer Agreement was executed on 11.12.2009, possession of the flat was handed over on 09.08.2010, and sale deed was executed on 26.10.2010; the present Complaint is filed after 13 years from the sale deed date. The complainant admitted awareness that the issue of construction of EWS units is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, further warranting dismissal of this complaint. The construction of EWS Units is currently undertaken by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, as per Office Memo No.Estate/MCC/2019/458 dated 14.01.2019, directing the company to deposit Rs. 151.67 lacs for EWS Flats construction, which was done vide Demand Draft dated 16.01.2019. Consequently, the show cause notice issued by the Corporation against the company was dropped. Thus, the construction of EWS Flats is now the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation, and the company has no role. The complainants booked a unit on 11.12.2009, possession was handed on 09.08.2010, and sale deed executed on 26.10.2010. Subsequently, a revised building plan sanctioned under the PM Housing Policy required the construction of 25 EWS Units (15% quota), but residents of the project failed to cooperate. Due to residents' protests, the Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice on 07.03.2016; despite the companys' representation explaining the non-cooperation, the Corporation ordered sealing of EWS Flats and imposed a penalty. The company also filed a police complaint on 10.07.2016 and a civil suit against residents and the Municipal Corporation, which is pending adjudication, with no stay on EWS Flats construction. The residents, including the complainants, have obstructed construction, which is a statutory obligation under the PM Housing Policy beyond the control. Therefore, the complaint lacks any substantive basis and is liable to be dismissed on all grounds stated.
3. Opposite party no.4 in its written reply took preliminary objections stating that the present complaint is not legally maintainable against it and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on several grounds; the complaint is hopelessly time-barred under Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which prescribes a two-year limitation from the date of cause of action; the alleged cause of action arose in 2009 when the flat was purchased from opposite party no.1 whereas the complaint has been filed in 2023 after an inordinate delay of nearly 14 years, rendering it patently barred by limitation; there exists no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party no.4, nor is there any consideration or contractual relationship making the complainants "consumers" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act; no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined under Sections 2(11) and 2(47) respectively has been alleged or established against opposite party no.4, and no relief whatsoever has been sought against it; the complainants did not initially implead opposite party no.4 and only added it later via MA No. 6 of 2024, solely for the purpose of clarification of statutory rules, which are public documents, and such impleadment does not justify maintainability of the complaint; the doctrine of caveat emptor applies to the facts of the case, and the complainants, as buyers, were obligated to conduct due diligence before purchasing the property rather than relying solely on brochures or verbal assurances; the complainants have not come to this Commission with clean hands, having suppressed the material fact that they have already approached the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court via CWP No. 20393 of 2020, and are also members of the Resident Welfare Association which has separately challenged the issue of EWS construction through CWP No. 20914 of 2020, both of which are pending adjudication. It has been stated that the site was allotted to opposite party no.1 by way of auction via letter dated 06.12.2005, subject to terms including construction of 15% EWS houses and obtaining necessary occupation/completion certificates from the competent authority. As per original sanctioned building plans of 2006, EWS units were to be located on the top floor; however, revised plans submitted by opposite party no.1 in 2010 relocated these units to Tower-I, which was duly approved by Chandigarh Administration. Opposite party no.4 is neither the authority for building plan sanctioning nor responsible for their revision, and cannot be held liable for the actions or omissions of OP No. 1. When EWS houses were not constructed, a show cause notice was issued to OP No. 1 under the applicable statutory provisions, leading to a penalty of Rs. 1.58 crores and sealing of flats in Tower-I as per the revised plan. These decisions were challenged by the Residents Welfare Association and the complainants through statutory remedies and are now pending before the High Court. As for the allegations regarding burden on sewage, water, traffic, or safety, the same are vague and speculative, and in any event, do not relate to opposite party no.4, especially when approved building plans already included provision for EWS construction. A Vigilance Inquiry is also pending regarding the grant of Occupation Certificate and the EWS construction, further indicating that the matter is already being probed at appropriate levels. Therefore, in light of the above facts, legal submissions, and absence of any sustainable cause of action, the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed qua opposite party no.4
4. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of this case, including the written submissions/arguments, very carefully.
6. Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complaint is baseless, misconceived, and an abuse of the legal process. He further submitted that this complaint filed is beyond limitation because cause of action, if any, expired after 2 years of taking over possession of the flat by the complainants, in the year 2009 i.e. cause of action accrued in 2011 itself. He further submitted that the construction of EWS units is a statutory requirement undertaken by the Municipal Corporation following applicable policies, and the opposite parties have no further role after complying with directions, including depositing requisite funds. He further submitted that the issues raised and the relief sought in this consumer complaint is already pending litigation before the High Court and as such, filing this complaint amounts to forum shopping.
7. On the other hand, Counsel for the complainants submitted that the opposite parties deliberately misrepresented the nature and status of the housing project by promoting it as a luxurious and legally sanctioned development without any EWS or two-bedroom flats. He further submitted that the complainants purchased the flat relying on these assurances and the official brochures, however, the subsequent unauthorized changes/revision in layout plans in the year 2010 to include EWS flats, lack of occupancy and completion certificates even after many years amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. He further submitted that the complainants have suffered significant financial, mental, and emotional distress due to the concealment of material facts and the failure of the opposite parties to fulfill their obligations. He further submitted that since no notice was ever sent by the opposite parties to the complainants seeking revision in the said layout plan as such there is a continuing cause of action in their favour to file this complaint.
8. The first moot question which falls for consideration before this Commission is, as to whether, this complaint is barred by limitation or not?. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to examine and reiterate the provisions of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the CPA, 2019), which pertains to the limitation period for filing complaints before the Consumer Commissions. The relevant provisions are as follows:-
"...Section 69: Limitation Period.
69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay..."
9. Section 69 (ibid) clearly mandates that a complaint must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arises. Thus, now the central issue before this Commission, is to determine whether the present complaint has been filed within the two-year limitation period or not. It may be stated here that we have gone through the record of this case, out of which following facts are not in dispute:-
i. Apartment buyer's agreement, Annexure C-5 in respect of the unit in question, was executed between the complainants and the company on 11.12.2009. ii. Possession of the unit in question admittedly stood delivered to the complainants on 09.08.2010, vide letter-Annexure C-6.
iii. Sale deed, Annexure C-7 in respect of the said unit stood executed on 26.10.2010. iv. Show cause notice, Annexure C-8 was issued by the Municipal Corporation upon the Company on 07.03.2016 and order- Annexure C-9 for sealing off the apartments in the Tower No.1 for construction of EWS houses was passed in the matter on 18.12.2018.
10. From bare perusal of the record, it is established that the last cause of action accrued to the complainants on 18.12.2018, when order, Annexure C-9 for sealing off the apartments in the Tower No.1 for construction of EWS houses was passed by the competent authority and, as such, this complaint should have been filed by the complainants within a period of two years from 18.12.2018 i.e. latest by 17.12.2020, as required under the provisions of Section 69 (ibid). However, this complaint has been filed by the complainants on 18.09.2023 and the complainants have failed to move any application giving sufficient cause to incline this Commission to condone the said huge delay in filing this complaint. Nothing has been mentioned in this complaint as to what stopped the complainants from filing this complaint within the period of limitation. In Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".
11. In view of the clear legal position and the facts of the case, this Commission is satisfied to hold that this complaint is barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, if we still proceed further on merits of this case, it would be nothing but commission of an illegality on the part of this Commission, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002, decided 20 March, 2009, wherein it was held that once the case is barred by time and yet, the consumer Commission decides it on merit, it would be committing an illegality and, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed being barred by limitation, with no order as to cost.
13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
14. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 16.07.2025 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Rg.
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER