State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunita Rani vs Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 27 February, 2026
C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 01.10.2018
Date of hearing: 16.12.2025
Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1292/2018
IN THE MATTER OF
MS. SUNITA RANI,
W/O MR. SUNIL KUMAR,
R/O B-65, SARASWATI KUNJ 25,
PATPARGANJ, DELHI - 110092.
(Through: Mr. Amresh Chand, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD.,
(FROMERLY KNOWN AS NITISHREE
INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.),
B-111, SECTOR-5, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201301.
2. ANIL JAIN, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF OP NO.1,
B-111, SECTOR-5, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201301.
(Through: Mr. Shashwat Kumar, Mr. Aman Alam
& Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocates)
...Opposite Party no.1 & 2.
3. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN,
VIKAS PATH, NEAR OLD BUS STAND,
GHAZIABAD - 201301.
(Through: Mr. Rachit Mittal, Advocate)
...Opposite Party no.3
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 17
C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Husband of the complainant
None for the OP No.1 & 2.
Mr. Abhishek Sinha (on VC), Mr. Shashwat Kumar and
Mr. Aman Alam, proxy counsel for Mr. Rachit Mittal,
Counsel for the OP No. 3 ( 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 on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:
a. Direct the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of the fully developed plots as per the agreement within a period of 3 months and take the balance amount as per the earlier agreement at the time of handover of the possession of the plot; b. Direct Opposite Party No.1 to deliver alternate residential plot at the original price incase the OP No.1 and OP No.2 are not in a position to give possession of the plot as per the agreement; c. Direct Opposite Party No.1 not to create any third- party interest in the subject plot till the pendency of the present complaint;
d. Direct opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay the compounding interest on the deposited amount paid between 2005-2007 @ 24% for the delay in implementation of the project;
e. Grant compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards mental harassment and agony; f. Direct Opposite parties to pay the cost/expenses of legal notice and litigation incurred by the Complainant;
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
g. Pass any such other/further orders which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in view of the fact and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present matter are that in the year 2005, the Complainant booked a plot admeasuring 175 sq. yds. in the project namely "Shouryapuram- NH-24‖ of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 22,23,625/- as per the demand letter issued by them. However, the Complainant objected to the total consideration of the said plot on the ground that the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to quantify the other charges. Subsequently, the Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 12,60,875/- besides EDC, PLC and other applicable charges to the Opposite Party No. 1. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 1 vide allotment letter dated 23.01.2007, allotted Plot No. D-1782 to the Complainant but the said allotment letter did not mention the date for handing over possession. Upon inquiry by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No. 1 verbally assured that possession of the said plot would be handed over in the year 2009. However, the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to deliver possession in the year 2009 and till date no possession has been handed over to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No. 1 vide letter dated 07.08.2012, demanded an amount of Rs. 12,19,203.25/- towards 80% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP). In the said letter, it was stated that the project was in full swing and that, as per the payment plan, 80% of the BSP and other charges had become due. Consequently, the Complainant inspected the site in the year 2012 and was shocked to observe that the site was in the same condition as it had been seven years earlier at the time of ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
booking. Therefore, the Complainant objected to the aforesaid demand on the ground that Opposite Party No. 1 had inordinately delayed the project and there had been no progress in the work during the preceding seven years. The Opposite Party No. 1 also made illegal demands towards EFC, connectivity charges, electricity connection charges, CDC, etc., which appear to be a tactic to cancel the earlier allotment of the plot. As a result, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.08.2018 seeking possession along with delayed compensation but the same was of no avail.
3. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have contested the present matter and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 submitted that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the dispute pertains to the year 2005, whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2018. Moreover, the Complainant allegedly made the last communication to the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 in the year 2012 with respect to the said plot; therefore, the complaint is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. He further submitted that this Commission does not have pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter as the property in question is situated at Ghaziabad. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 do not have any branch office in Delhi nor has any cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.
4. The counsel for the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 submitted that the present case involves complicated questions of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings and require a detailed trial. He also submitted that the Complainant defaulted in ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
making payments towards the said plot; therefore, failed to fulfil her contractual obligations under the agreed payment plan. Moreover, the Complainant herself has submitted in the present complaint that the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 vide letter dated 07.08.2012, demanded an amount of Rs.12,19,203/- against the booking amount, which was objected to by her vide letter dated 17.08.2012. Lastly, he submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 as the Complainant herself failed to make the requisite payments and has now filed the present complaint in an attempt to derive undue advantage. Thus, the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party no.1 and 2. Both the parties have duly filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
6. The Complainant filed his written arguments and reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that despite making substantial payment towards the plot, the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period. He further relied upon Consumer Case No. 149 of 2013 titled Nitishree Victim's Welfare Association vs. Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd., decided on 13.04.2022 by Hon'ble NCDRC. The Complainant prayed that the complaint be allowed and appropriate directions be issued against Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.
7. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 also filed their written arguments and reiterated the contents of their written statement. They contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
that the delay. Further submitted that the Complainant himself was in default of payment as per the agreed payment plan. The Opposite Party no.1 and 2 prayed that the complaint be dismissed being devoid of merit.
8. We have perused the material available on record.
9. The first question for consideration before us is whether the present complaint is barred by limitation as per the consumer protection act, 1986?
10. The Opposite Party no.1 and 2 have contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is imperative to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
24A. Limitation period.--
(1) The District Forum, 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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.‖
11. A perusal of the above statutory provision of law reflects that the complaint shall be filed before the State Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It is clear from the record that till date neither possession of the said ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
plot has been delivered nor the amount has been refunded to the Complainant by the Opposite party no.1 and 2. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts.‖
12. Relying on the above settled law, it is clear that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong constitutes a recurrent cause of action in favour of the buyer and therefore, till the time possession is not delivered to the Complainant, she is within right to file the present complaint before this commission. Consequently, the present complaint is not barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Act.
13. The second question for consideration before us is whether this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint?
14. The next question for consideration is whether this commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. We deem it appropriate to refer to Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:
―(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State 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, actually and ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
voluntarily 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 that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.‖
15. Analysis of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that clause 17(2) of the Act provides the extent of territorial jurisdiction, wherein it has been provided that the state commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain cases where Opposite Party 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 or the cause of action arose.
16. Having discussed the statutory position, the facts of the present case reflect the registered office of the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 are at Shop no. 108, First Floor, Vardhaman Mayur Market, Mayur Vihar Phase-3, Delhi - 110096. Since the registered office falls within the territory of Delhi, this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. To strength the aforesaid findings, we tend to rely on Rohit Srivastava v. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198, wherein it has been held as under:
ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
"It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No. 1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.‖
17. Relying on the above settled law, we are of the view that this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.
18. The next question for consideration before us is whether the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, which should be decided by the civil court?
19. The Opposite Party no.1 and 2 contended that the jurisdiction of this Commission would be barred in view of the fact that the complicated question of facts and law which have been raised in the present complaint can only be decided before the Civil Court.
20. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, came into being in order to protect the interests of Consumers who are affected by the acts of the service providers, who in order to attract the Consumers, tend to make lucrative offers but when it comes to actually providing the offered services, they take a step back.
21. Deficiency has been defined under section 2 sub-clause (g) which reads as follows:
―(2) (g)"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;‖
22. Returning to the facts of the present complaint, the perusal of the record shows that the Complainant avail the services of the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 for a consideration. However, the Opposite Party failed to complete the said project, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has sought relief against the Opposite Party no.1 and 2. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 i.e., the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession within reasonable time and it is only due to this reason, that the possession of the said plot is sought from the Opposite Party no.1 and 2, which this Commission is authorised to adjudicate.
23. Our view is further fortified by the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. v. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., reported at AIR 2012 SC 2369, wherein it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes 'service' within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of consumers.
ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
24. Moreover, nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which could not be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties.
25. Consequently, we are of the view that the present complaint falls within the four corners of the jurisdiction of this commission and there is no bar with respect to the jurisdiction of this commission to entertain cases related to the refund of amount deposited with the Opposite Party no.1 and 2.
26. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 are deficient in providing its services to the Complainant?
27. The counsel for the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 submitted that the Complainant defaulted in making payments towards the said plot; therefore, failed to fulfil her contractual obligations under the agreed payment plan.
28. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
―23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the Opposite Party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation.‖
29. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is noted that though the Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 assured her to hand over the possession of the said plot by the year 2009, however, we failed to find any document/provision which shows us the time period within which Opposite Party no.1 and 2 had to handover the possession of the said plot to the Complainant.
30. To resolve the aforesaid issue, it is appropriate to refer to the First Appeal no. 348/2016 tiled as "Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Shobha Arora and Ors." decided on 10.05.2019, wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC has held as under:
―......under Section 46 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the following provision is there:
46.Time for performance of promise, where no application is to be made and no time is specified -
Where, by the contract, a promisor is to perform his promise without application by the promisee, and no time for performance is specified, the engagement must be performed within a reasonable time.
Explanation - The question "what is a reasonable time"
is, in each particular case, a question of fact".
19. from the above provision it is clear that if there is no time limit for the performance of a particular promise given by one party, it is to be performed within a reasonable time. In most of the builder buyer agreements, the period ranges from 24 to 48 months and the most common agreement seems to be for 36 ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
months plus grace period of six months for completion of construction and delivery of possession. If the possession is delivered beyond 42 months or beyond 48 months, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party shall stand proved.‖
31. Relying on the above settled law, if the possession is delivered beyond the 42 months or beyond 48 months, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party shall stand proved.
32. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is clear from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant made the booking payment for the said plot on 03.10.2005. Thereafter, the Complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 6,54,893/- towards the said plot till 03.01.2007. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 issued the allotment letter dated 23.01.2007 and allotted the said plot to the Complainant. However, no date of possession was mentioned in the allotment letter. More so, even if we calculate 42 months or 48 months from date of allotment i.e., 23.01.2007, the Opposite Party 1 & 2 failed to offer possession till the year 2011.
33. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 vide letter dated 07.08.2012 demanded further payment for the said plot after more than five years from the last payment without explaining any delay. Moreover, it is further clear from content the letter dated 18.06.2012 issued by Opposite Party No. 1, wherein, it is mentioned that the work related to F, E and B Blocks was in full swing and the plot was nearing possession. Therefore, it is apparent that the construction was not completed even till 18.06.2012.
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
34. Consequently, we are of the view that the possession was considerably delayed, as nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the first payment and the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 were still not in a position to offer possession of the plot. The Complainant cannot be expected to make payment in the absence of any demand letter and when there was no certainty regarding the delivery of possession. As a result, the contention that there was default in payment towards the plot is devoid of merit.
35. Resultantly, we hold that the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 are deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainant with respect to the time for handing over the possession of the said plot.
36. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Consumer Case No. 149 of 2013 titled Nitishree Victim's Welfare Association vs. Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd., decided on 13.04.2022, wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC, in respect of the same project and under similar facts and circumstances held that:
―11. It has not been denied by the builder that the members of the complainant association booked the flats/plots in the year 2006-2007, while the layout plan of the project was sanctioned on 29.11.2010. There is inordinate delay on the part of the builder in development as well as offer of possession of the plots/flats. Confusion has also been created as the layout plan was sanctioned in the name of SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Consortium). In such circumstances the members of the complainant association were justified in not depositing the money in response of demand letters as well as reminders issued by the builder. At present more than 15 ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
years have passed, after booking the plot/flat by the members of the complainant association, therefore, it is in the interest of justice, the builder may complete the project in all respect and offer possession within a period of six months. The builder would be entitled to charge simple interest @9% per annum of the dues, from the allottees.
12. The argument that EDC, CDC, Service Tax, VAT and IFMS etc. are not payble is not liable to be accepted. The allottees are liable to share in proportion all statutory deposits.
ORDER In the result, the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to complete the project and offer possession and execute conveyance deed after obtaining occupancy certificate from the competent authority within a period of six months. The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation as interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit from due date of possession till the date of offer of possession after obtaining occupancy certificate."
37. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the settled position of law discussed above, we direct Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 to offer possession and hand over the physical possession of the said plot after obtaining occupancy certificate from the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The Opposite Party no.1 and 2 further directed to pay compensation as simple interest @6% per annum ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 17 C.C 1292/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MS. SUNITA RANI VS. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
on the deposit amount from the date of first payment receipt till the date of offer of possession.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 shall hand over any other similarly situated plot in the same project, of similar size, at the same rate at which the plot was originally booked by the Complainant within 3 months from the date of this judgment along with delayed compensation of simple interest @6% per annum on the deposit amount from the date of first payment receipt till the date of offer of possession.
38. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
39. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties.
40. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
27.02.2026 LR-ZA ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 17