State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Durgesh Dalela W/O. Parveen Kumar ... vs Suksha Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 10 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/94/2025
WITH
SC/4/IA/217/2025 (INTERIM RELIEF)
DURGESH DALELA W/o. Parveen Kumar Saxena
PRESENT ADDRESS - PANCHKULA PANCHKULA,HARYANA.
PRAKHAR SAXENA
PRESENT ADDRESS - HARYANAPANCHKULA,HARYANA.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
SUKSHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BINDER PAL MITTAL DIRECTOR SUKSHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD
BUSINESS ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BHARAT MITTAL DIRECTOR SUKSHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHDCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD
BUSINESS ADDRESS - MUMBAIMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
ARUN KUMAR & VARUN BHARDWAJ (Advocate)
DATED: 10/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 94 of 2025 Date of Institution : 19.09.2025 Date of Decision : 10.12.2025
1. Durgesh Dalela Aged 49 Years W/O Praveen Kumar Saxena.
2. Prakhar Saxena Aged 27 Years S/O Praveen Kumar Saxena.
Both Residents of House No. 83, Himshikha Colony, Near Gurudwara, Pinjore, District Panchkula- 134102.
......Complainants Versus
1. Suksha Developers Private Limited Through Its Director/Authorized Signatory, Having Its Registered Office At B-107, First Floor, Business Complex at Elante Mall, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh-160002. Email - contact@sushmabuildtech
2. Binder Pal Mittal, Director, Suksha Developers Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At B-107, First Floor, Business Complex at Elante Mall, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh-160002.
3. Bharat Mittal, Director, Suksha Developers Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At B-107, First Floor, Business Complex at Elante Mall, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh-160002.
4. ICICI Home Finance Company Limited Through Its Authorized Officer, Having Its Registered Office At ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051.
Email - [email protected] .....Opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER Present:- Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainants. Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate, for the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, (on VC) & Ms. Monika Thatai, & Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocates (present physically before this Commission) for the opposite party No. 4 JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The facts in brief are that the Complainants were allotted Unit No. A1202 on the 12th Floor in the residential project "Sushma Belleza", Zirakpur, Punjab, vide allotment letter dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure C-1) being developed by opposite parties No.1 to 3, under a Construction-Linked Payment Plan, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,99,98,500/-, and paid an earnest money deposit of Rs. 19,89,650/-. Prior to allotment, the Complainants and opposite parties No.1 to 3 finalized a subvention arrangement recorded in the "Final Deal Sheet - Residential" dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure C-2), whereby the Promoter undertook to pay pre-EMI interest up to 75% of the BSP until the offer of possession, which formed the primary inducement for the Complainants to avail a home loan of Rs. 1,36,69,600/- from Opposite Party No. 4. The Complainants and opposite parties No.1 to 3 executed an Agreement for Sale dated 05.10.2023(Annexure C-3), containing specific clauses confirming the Promoter's responsibility to pay all outgoings and mortgage-related obligations before offering possession, and additionally entered into a Tripartite Agreement (Annexure C-5), at Chandigarh with Opposite Party No. 4 to give effect to the subvention structure. The Complainants promptly made all payments from their own resources as well as through disbursements from Opposite Party No. 4, amounting to Rs. 1,58,05,603/-, relying on the subvention commitment. Despite these obligations, opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to service the pre-EMIs during the construction period, and in May 2024, requested the Complainants to pay the pre-EMIs on their behalf, which they did until March 2025 under protest. On 17.12.2024 opposite parties No.1 to 3 issued a formal restructuring letter (Annexure C-24), acknowledging their inability to pay pre-EMIs and effectively transferring the financial burden to the Complainants, contrary to the original contractual assurances. Further, Opposite Party No. 4, despite being fully aware of the subvention arrangement, initiated coercive actions, including issuing a legal notice on 23.04.2025 (Annexure C-25), for dishonoured NACH/mandate, followed by a conciliation letter on 24.07.2025 (Annexure C-26), and ultimately a SARFAESI demand notice under Section 13(2) dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure C-27), reflecting a total outstanding of Rs. 1,38,05,133.99 and threatening recovery measures under Section 13(4), thereby causing serious prejudice to the Complainants' credit profile, mental distress, reputational harm, and harassment.
2. Hence the present complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking following reliefs:-
(i). Declare that Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 are contractually liable under the Subvention Scheme recorded in the Final Deal Sheet dated 15.09.2023 (read with the Agreement for Sale) to pay all Pre-EMI interest/amounts till a valid "offer of possession",
(ii). Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 to forthwith pay all outstanding Pre-EMI amounts (including any overdues/penal charges solely arising due to their default) to Opposite Party No. 4 and to continue paying all future Pre-EMIs till offer of possession is validly issued in accordance with the Agreement for Sale; with interest on delayed sums;
(iii). Direct Opposite Party No. 4 to cease and desist from any coercive/recovery/legal action (including SARFAESI measures, criminal complaints for mandate/NACH, arbitration recovery, or otherwise) against the Complainants for Pre-EMI dues pertaining to the subvention period and call upon Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 to discharge its subvention obligation till offer of possession:
(iv). Quash/keep in abeyance the SARFAESI 13(2) Demand Notice dated 21.08.2025 and all consequential steps against the Complainants in respect of Pre-EMI-period dues;
(v). Direct Opposite Party No. 4 to immediately rectify the CIBIL/credit information of both Complainants by removing adverse entries/DPD/default markers attributable to non-payment of Pre-EMIs during the subvention period; to issue rectification letters/NOCs to all CICs within 15 days and file compliance before this Hon'ble Commission:
(vi). Direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainants compensation to the tune of Rs.
10,00,000/- for mental torture and harassment:
(vii). Direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainants Rs. 2,00,000/- towards Legal Expenses;
(viii). Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.
3. The complaint of the complainants has been contested by the opposite parties no.1 to 3, on numerous grounds, inter alia, as under:-
(i). that the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumers and are investors;
(ii). that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint;
(iii). that in the face of provisions of RERA under which the agreement has been executed the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred qua any dispute in respect of the unit in question;
(iv). that at no point of time, the opposite parties have ever committed to pay PRE-EMIs to the bank under subvention scheme, from which the complainants have availed housing loan;
(v). that the agreement in question did not warrant any obligation upon the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to extend any personal financial obligations, liabilities, loans etc., except what have been agreed to between the parties therein;
(vi). that lending of housing loan by the complainants from opposite party no.4 is purely a personal matter of the complainants; however, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have provided all necessary assistance like mortgage letter etc. in the matter;
(vii). that possession of the unit in question is proposed to be delivered on or before 30.09.2026 and delayed compensation if any is payable as per terms and conditions of the agreement in question and that too, subject to force majeure circumstances;
(viii). that this complaint is premature being possession date of unit as 30.09.2026;
(ix). that this complaint is barred by limitation;
(x). that the final deal sheet dated 15.9.2023 has no legal sanctity in the absence of signatures of the
opposite parties.
4. On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case qua purchase of the unit in question by the complainants; payments made by them, it has been stated that when the Complainants started defaulting, delaying, and failing to make timely Pre-EMI/EMI payments to Opposite Party No. 4/ICICI Bank Limited, they were exposed to penal interest, default charges, adverse credit rating, loan recall, and potential invocation of the mortgage over the unit. As a matter of exceptional goodwill and commercial courtesy, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 agreed to bear the Pre-EMI payments for the Complainants from June 2024 to March 2025, purely as a one-time accommodation to assist them during genuine financial hardship and made payment of Rs.7,69,637/-. It is explicitly stated that this arrangement was limited to the specified period, granted ex gratia, and does not create any ongoing obligation, liability, or right for the Complainants to claim continued payment of Pre-EMIs or other financial obligations in the future. This accommodation was provided vide letter dated 17.12.2024, Annexure R-5 without prejudice to their rights and defenses, and the Complainants cannot transform this one-time measure into a permanent obligation. It has been further stated that under the same condition, Pre-EMI for the months of April 2025 and May 2025 totalling to Rs.90,360/- was transferred to the account of the complainants. Rest of the averments made in the complaint has been denied being wrong and prayer has been made to dismiss this complaint with costs.
5. Opposite Party No.4 in its written reply took objections to the effect that the complaint is wholly misconceived, not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed, as the Complainants have attempted to mislead this Commission and have not approached it with clean hands, having earlier filed a complaint before RERA Punjab which was dismissed as withdrawn. The Complainants voluntarily entered into a Tripartite Agreement with Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and Opposite Party No.4, under which all terms, including loan disbursement, Pre-EMI obligations, and borrower liability, were clearly defined, and they executed the agreement with full knowledge of the terms. Opposite Party No.4's role was strictly limited to facilitating the home loan and ensuring repayment in accordance with the Loan Agreement and statutory provisions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and it was neither a party to, nor, bound by any subsequent restructuring arrangement between the Complainants and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Any alleged default or delay in Pre-EMI payments under the subvention scheme, or any modification thereof, is purely interse between the Complainants and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and cannot create liability, deficiency, or cause of action against Opposite Party No.4. Due to default in repayment, Opposite Party No.4 issued a legal notice dated 23.04.2025 and later initiated recovery proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, after the account became NPA on 08.08.2025, with the total outstanding being Rs. 1,38,05,133.99 as on 12.08.2025, giving 60 days time to the complainants to pay it. Opposite Party No.4 also attempted conciliatory proceedings, which were not accepted by the Complainants. Further, the Complainants' reliance on pending SLP(C) No. 7649/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to assert a builder-financier nexus is factually incorrect, legally untenable, and misleading, as no final observations have been made. Remaining averments have been denied being wrong and prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint against opposite party no.4.
6. In the rejoinder filed the Complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those of the written reply of the opposite parties.
7. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
8. We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, including the written arguments filed by the parties concerned, very carefully.
9. First, we will address the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 to 3 that the complainants do not fall within the definition of 'consumer'. It may be stated that this objection is not supported by any documentary evidence; therefore, the onus shifts to opposite parties No.1 to 3 to establish that the complainants purchased the unit in question for the purpose of 'purchase and sale of plots/units', as held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. Since they have failed to discharge this onus, we hold that the complainants are consumers as defined under the Act. In view of this, the objection raised in this regard stands rejected.
10. As far as objection taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, it may be stated here that perusal of almost all the documents i.e. Allotment letter dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure C-1), Agreement for sale dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure C-3), payment receipts (Annexures C-9 to C-23), letter dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure C-24) placed on record reveal that the same have been issued from the Registered Office of opposite parties no.1 to 3 at B-107, First Floor, Business Complex At Elante Mall, Industrial Area-1. Chandigarh-160002, meaning thereby that opposite parties no.1 to 3 are actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on their business, at the said Chandigarh Office for gain. Thus, this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Objection taken by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 in this regard stands rejected.
11. As far as objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, since admittedly, an amount of Rs. 1,58,05,603/-, stood paid by the complainants in respect of the unit in question to opposite parties no.1 to 3, which is above Rs.50 lacs and below Rs.2 crores, this Commission is vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Objection taken by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 in this regard also stands rejected.
12. An objection was also raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the effect that in the face of registration of the project under the RERA and agreement being executed under the provisions of RERA, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred to entertain this complaint. It may be stated here that this objection does not merit acceptance, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C ivil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and another, decided on 02.11.2020, wherein it was held that the provisions of RERA Act does not in any way bar the Consumer Commissions under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any consumer complaint. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
"....24. It is, therefore, required to be considered whether the remedy so provided under the RERA Act to an allottee is the only and exclusive modality to raise a grievance and whether the provisions of the RERA Act bar consideration of the grievance of an allottee by other fora.
25. Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, while in terms of Section 89, the provisions of the RERA Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. 26. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an allottee described in category (B) stated in paragraph 22 hereinabove, would stand barred from invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, as regards the allottees who can be called "consumers" within the meaning of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the provisions of the CP Act; and b) whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the RERA Act.
*27. In Malay Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee , it was held by this Court:- "The proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court. *(See Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking *Corpn . On the strength of the law so declared, Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint..."
This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019, Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Abhishek Khanna & Others, decided on 11.01.2021.
13. Now coming to the merits of this case, upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents on record, and submissions made by the parties, it is abundantly clear that the obligations of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to pay the Pre-EMI interest under the subvention scheme are well-established. The Final Deal Sheet dated 15.09.2023, (Annexure C-2) coupled with the formal letter issued by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 on 17.12.2024 (Annexure C-24), explicitly confirm that the Promoter undertook the responsibility to make Pre-EMI payments to the lending bank on behalf of the Complainants until possession of the unit was offered upto to extent of 75% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP). The said letter clearly mentions that the restructuring of the Pre-EMI payments is in lieu of the monthly Pre-EMI amounts that were required to be credited to the Complainants' account, leaving no room for doubt that the obligation was contractual and not voluntary. The fact that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 themselves transferred the Pre-EMI amounts twice into the account of the Complainants further demonstrates recognition and execution of this obligation. The contention of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 that such payments was voluntary or purely a matter of commercial courtesy is wholly untenable and legally unacceptable. It is not reasonably credible that a company of such size and standing would unilaterally make substantial financial transfers of this nature without a binding contractual commitment.
14. Further, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have failed to place any material evidence on record such as a report from a Chartered Accountant or relevant entries in their audited balance sheets to substantiate their claim that the payments were voluntary or exgratia only and not under any other head. The absence of such corroborative documentation reinforces the conclusion that the transfer of such amounts were in fulfillment of their contractual obligations under the subvention scheme. The combination of the Final Deal Sheet and the December 2024 letter is, therefore, sufficient to establish that the unit in question was covered under a subvention arrangement and that the Promoter was liable to pay the Pre-EMI amounts until possession of the unit was delivered to the Complainants.
15. At the same time, it is held that a cause of action clearly arose to the Complainants to file this complaint when Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 ceased making the Pre-EMI payments in respect of the unit in question. This dispute is independent of the question of possession of the unit, and therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be premature merely because possession is scheduled to be delivered in 2026. Similarly, while an objection could be taken either on the ground of prematurity or on limitation, both cannot be simultaneously urged. Consequently, the objection raised on the ground of limitation is also unsustainable. In view of these considerations, the objections raised by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are hereby rejected.
16. For the reasons recorded above, this compliant is partly accepted with costs. Accordingly, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
(i). to immediately start paying the Pre-EMI amount upto the extent of 75% of the Basic Sale Price of the unit in question to Opposite Party No.4 from December 2025 onwards till possession of the unit is actually delivered, compete in all respects;
(ii). to pay all outstanding Pre-EMI amounts (including any over-dues/penal charges solely arising due to their default) upto the extent of 75% of the Basic Sale Price to Opposite Party No. 4.
(iii). to refund to the complainants all Pre-EMI amounts already paid by them upto the extent of 75% of the Basic Sale Price to Opposite Party No.4 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of payment till realization
(iv). to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice to the tune of Rs.75,000/- and also Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the Complainants within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts of compensation and litigation expenses shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
17. At the same time, opposite party No.4 is directed to cease and desist from initiating or continuing any coercive, recovery, or legal action (including SARFAESI measures, criminal complaints for mandate/NACH, arbitration proceedings, or any other recovery action) against the complainants for Pre- EMI dues pertaining to the subvention period, as the liability to pay the Pre-EMIs rests with opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Opposite party No. 4, with the assistance of opposite parties no.1 to 3 (if required their assistance) shall also take necessary steps to rectify the CIBIL/credit information of the complainants by ensuring removal of adverse entries/DPD/default markers attributable to the non-payment of Pre-EMIs during the subvention period, after following due procedure of law, rules, and regulations. This exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
18. Pending applications(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
19. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 10.12.2025 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg.
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER