State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Binod Kumar Tiwary vs M/S Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on 18 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/172/2025
(Against the Order dated 11th March 2025 in Complaint DC/44/CC/123/2024 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)
BINOD KUMAR TIWARY
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O LATE SH. PRABHAKAR TIWARY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.
1433/2 2ND FLOOR SECTOR 34-C CHANDIGARH. , SECTOR 34-C, CHANDIGARH , HOUSE
NUMBER 1433/2, 2ND FLOOR , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
VANDANA TIWARY
PRESENT ADDRESS - W/O BINOD KUMAR TIWARY R/O H.NO. 1433/2 2ND FLOOR, SECTOR
34-C, CHANDIGARH. , SECTOR 34-C, CHANDIGARH , HOUSE NUMBER 1433/2, 2ND FLOOR
, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S PANCHSHEEL BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, ADDRESS REGISTRATION OFFICE G-124
SHOP NO. 5 DILSHAD COLONY DELHI . , DILSHAD COLONY, DELHI , REGISTRATION
OFFICE G124, SHOP NO. 5, DILSHAD COLONY, DELHI , CENTRAL,DELHI.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ATUL ARYA ADVOCATE (Advocate)
DATED: 18/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 172 of 2025 Date of Institution : 09.05.2025 Date of Decision : 18.12.2025
1. Binod Kumar Tiwary, s/o Late Sh. Prabhakar Tiwary r/o House Number 1433/2 (2nd Floor), Sector 34- C, Chandigarh.
2. Vandana Tiwary w/o Binod Kumar Tiwary r/o House Number 1433/2 (2nd Floor), Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.
....Appellants/complainants Versus
1. M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited through its Director, Address: Registration Office: G-124, Shop No. 5, Dilshad Colony, Delhi.
2ND Address: Plot No. -34, Block-G, Sector 63, Noida, U.P.
2. HDFC Limited through its Manager, Registered Office: Raman House, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400 020 2nd Address/ Branch Office: The Capital Court Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110 067 ...Respondents/opposite parties Present:- Sh.Atul Arya, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Shailendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Sh.A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Sushant Kareer, Advocate for respondent no.2.
================================================================ Appeal No. : 178 of 2025 Date of Institution : 16.05.2025 Date of Decision : 18.12.2025 Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited through its Director, Represented by AR of the Company, Registered Office G-124, Shop No. 5, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095.
Corporate office at Plot No. -34, Block-G, Sector 63, Noida, U.P.-201301.
....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus
1. Binod Kumar Tiwary, s/o Late Sh. Prabhakar Tiwary r/o House Number 1433/2, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.
2. Vandana Tiwary w/o Binod Kumar Tiwary r/o House Number 1433/2, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.
3. HDFC Limited through its Manager, Registered Office: Raman House, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400 020.
2nd Address/ Branch Office: The Capital Court Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110 067 ...Respondents Present:- Sh.Shailendra Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Atul Arya, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
Sh.A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Sushant Kareer, Advocate for respondent no.3.
================================================================ BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT By this order, we are going to dispose of the above captioned two appeals i.e. Appeal No.172 of 2025 (Binod Kumar Tiwary and anr. Versus M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited and another) and Appeal no.178 of 2025 (M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Binod Kumar Tiwary and others). Both these appeals have originated from the common order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), in consumer complaint bearing no.123 of 2024, which was allowed and opposite party no.1/M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited was directed as under:-
"......13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.1 directed as under: -
(i) to hand over actual physical possession of flat/apartment in question to the complainants complete in all respect after receipt of balance payment of Rs.
3,91,328/- from the complainant.
(ii) to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
(iii) to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
14. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 30 days till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
15. It is made clear that the complainant shall take possession of the flat/apartment within 10 days after offer of the same is made by the OPs as per order passed by this Commission and if further any delay in taking the possession by the complainant within the permitted time as per this order the complainant shall pay applicable watch and ward charges as per the Buyer's Agreement.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off....."
Factual scenario:-
2. Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainants (Binod Kumar and Vandana Tiwary), that allured by the tall claims made by Opposite Party No.1 regarding its project, they booked an apartment by paying a booking amount of Rs.4,10,000/-, whereupon Apartment No. 906, 9th Floor, Tower E3 in "Panchsheel Greens II," Plot No. GH-01A, Sector-16, Greater Noida West, having a built-up area of 881.78 sq. ft., was allotted to them at an agreed price of Rs.43,55,874/-, with possession promised within 36 months. On the insistence of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainants opted for a subvention scheme and executed a Tripartite Agreement with opposite parties no.1 and 2, under which Opposite Party No.1 was liable to pay the EMIs till 28.02.2018. Although Opposite Party No.1 initially paid the EMIs, it later defaulted and asked the Complainants to pay the EMIs with an assurance of reimbursement, compelling them to pay EMIs from December 2018 onwards, only some of which were partially reimbursed. Despite repeated requests through emails and personal visits, Opposite Party No.1 failed to refund the outstanding EMIs. On 27.07.2023, Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that the Occupancy Certificate had been obtained and demanded fresh payments without settling previous dues.
Even after being informed on 17.12.2023 that the Complainants had paid Rs.11,58,838/- till October 2023 while Opposite Party No.1 reimbursed only Rs.2,45,394/-, no action was taken. The Complainants alleged that the delay in possession and failure to reimburse EMIs caused mental agony and harassment, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, leading to the filing of the complaint. Hence consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
Written reply filed by the opposite parties:-
3. In its reply, Opposite Party No.1, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the delay in construction occurred due to global recession, inflation, and the Covid-19 pandemic, which adversely affected economies worldwide, particularly the real estate sector. It was averred that Opposite Party No.1 had paid the pre-EMIs till February 2021, and that no amount is outstanding from its side, as the remaining pre-EMI amount of Rs.1,31,754/- payable till March 2023 has already been paid after deducting the zero period in accordance with Notification No. 7774/77-4-2023-6011/2023 dated 21.12.2023 issued by the Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commission, U.P. The said amount of Rs.1,18,579/- was adjusted in the final demand dated 22.02.2024 after deducting TDS of Rs.13,175/-. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 paid the pre-EMIs from September 2019 to March 2023 directly to the Complainants, and not to the Bank, due to the new National Housing Bank guidelines requiring builders to pay EMIs to customers rather than to banks. Opposite Party No.1 issued an Offer of Possession dated 10.03.2023 on the basis of four NOCs (Deemed Occupancy Certificate) in terms of the RERA notification dated 16.09.2019, which provides that possession may be delivered upon obtaining Electrical Safety, Fire Safety, Structural Engineer, and Lift Installation/Safety Certificates. It was stated that an Occupancy Certificate was thereafter obtained on 25.07.2023, followed by an email dated 27.07.2023 requesting the Complainants to complete pre-possession formalities by clearing all dues as per the BBA so that handover of the unit could proceed.
Opposite Party No.1 asserted that the said email contains no reference to pre-EMIs, contrary to the Complainants' allegations. Denying any deficiency in service, Opposite Party No.1 refuted all other allegations as incorrect.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it as the Complainants have failed to raise any cause of action or allege any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. It was contended that the complaint, insofar as it pertains to Opposite Party No.2, is liable to be dismissed. All other allegations made by the Complainants were denied as incorrect.
Rejoinder:-
5. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint.
6. The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Commission.
Decision of the District Commission:-
7. The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above, out of which these appeals have arisen.
Arguments:-
8. We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record.
Submissions of the parties:-
9. Counsel for the appellants in Appeal No.172 of 2025 (Binod Kumar Tiwary and anr. Versus M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited and another) vehemently contended that the District Commission fell into a grave error by holding that opposite party no.1 is liable to pay only four installments of Pre-EMIs to the tune of Rs.75,288/-. He further submitted that on the other hand, total number of Pre-EMIs which opposite party no.1 has not reimbursed to the appellants uptill the date of offer of possession is 48 which is continuing, as the appellants are regularly paying the same to opposite party no.2. He further submitted that as such, the order impugned needs to be set aside and directions may kindly be given to respondent no.1 to deliver possession of the unit in question; refund/reimburse the EMIs paid by the appellant to respondent no.2 alongwith interest till realization; pay delayed compensation; compensation for mental agony and harassment and also litigation expenses.
10. On the other hand, counsel for the appellant in Appeal no.178 of 2025 (M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Binod Kumar Tiwary and others) vehemently contended that initially, the appellant company had paid the Pre-EMIs till February 2021, however, it was later on stopped, in view of notification bearing no.7777/77-4-2023-6011/2023 dated 21.12.2023, Annexure A/4 issued by the Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commission, U.P. Payable amount of Rs.1,18,579/- has been adjusted in the final demand dated 22.02.20245 after deducting TDS of Rs.13,175/- till offer of possession letter dated 10.03.2023. Pre-EMI starting from September 2019 till March 2023 was paid directly to the complainants/respondents in view of the said notification and not to respondent no.3- bank. The liability of the appellant qua payment of Pre-EMIs got extinguished from the date of offer of possession. He further raised various objections to the effect that the District Commission failed to notice that it was having no jurisdiction in the face of arbitration clause 41 contained in the allotment letter; it was not having territorial jurisdiction; the respondents/complainants being investors are not consumers; and that the matter being a contractual nature needs to be decided by the civil court only.
Observations/Findings of this Commission:-
Objection regarding arbitration:-
11. First coming to the objection taken with regard to Arbitration, it may be stated here that this issue has already been addressed by a larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr. (Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015), decided on 13.07.2017. In its order dated 13.07.2017, the Hon'ble National Commission held that an arbitration clause in agreements/contracts between a buyer and a builder cannot override the jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions, despite the amendments to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Furthermore, the Civil Appeals (Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017) and the Review Petitions (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 13.07.2017 were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018, respectively. Accordingly, objection raised in this regard is hereby rejected.
Complainants are consumers:-
12. Now, addressing the objection raised by the appellant in FA No.178 of 2025 that the respondents/complainants did not fall within the definition of "consumer," it is noted that the complainants, in the complaint as well as in their duly sworn affidavits, have categorically asserted that the residential unit was purchased solely for their living purposes. The appellant has not placed on record any documentary evidence, such as proof of multiple real-estate transactions, or investment motive to rebut this assertion or to show that the respondents/complainants are engaged in the business of buying and selling units for profit. It is well-settled by the Hon'ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates, I (2016) CPJ 31 that once the respondents/ complainants assert personal use, the burden shifts to the builder to establish the contrary. Since the appellant has failed to discharge this burden, we hold that the respondents/complainants fall within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Territorial jurisdiction:-
13. Now coming to the objection raised regarding territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that since the complainants are residents of Chandigarh, as is evident from their Aadhaar cards attached with the main consumer complaint showing their address as House Number 1433/2 (2nd Floor), Sector 34-C, Chandigarh, as such, they were well within their right under Section 34 (2) (d) to file this complaint with the District Commission, at Chandigarh. Objection taken in this regard therefore stands rejected.
Merits of the case:-
14. The first question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the appellants (Binod Kumar Tiwary and Vandana Tiwary) are entitled to get any relief in the matter or not? It may be stated here that we have perused the statement of accounts dated 27.01.2025 placed on record by the HDFC Bank/respondent no.2 perusal whereof reveals that the total amount of Pre-EMI received by it for the period from 01.04.2017 till July 2023 is Rs.14,09,702/-. At the same time, it is also clearly coming out from the document (now marked as Annexure X-1 and Annexure A-12 with the appeal record of the builder/Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited) already placed on District Commission record also that from July 2015 till March 2023 the total Pre-EMIs payable is Rs.14,57,914/-. It is further coming out from these documents that respondent no.1 has paid an amount of Rs.5,24,633/- directly to respondent no.2 and an amount of Rs.2,69,242/-
directly to the appellants/complainants i.e. total amount of Rs.7,93,875/- out of payable Pre-EMI of Rs.14,57,942/- aforesaid. It is further coming out from these documents that the appellants/complainants have paid an amount of Rs.7,76,002/- to respondent no.2/bank. Thus, at this stage, it is clear that the respondent no.1/Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited is liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,64,067/- (Rs. 14,57,942/- minus (-) Rs.7,93,875/- already paid by the builder to complainants and the bank directly). Under these circumstances, it is held that the appellants/complainants are liable to pay total amount of Rs.3,34,862/- to M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited as calculated below:-
Cost of the unit = 4559872.00 (A)
Already paid = 3631743.00 (B)
Balance payable(A-B) = 928129.00 (C)
Meter Charges = 70800.00 (D)
Total (C+D) = 998929.00 (E)
Balance towards builder = 664067.00 (F)
Payable by the complainants = 334862.00 (E-F)
15. It is an admitted case that possession of the unit in question was not delivered to the appellants by respondent no.1 on the ground that the demand of Rs.13,00,376/- plus maintenance charges was not fulfilled by the appellants. Be that as it may, since this Commission has arrived at a conclusion that only an amount of Rs.3,34,862/- was payable by the appellants against the demand of Rs.13,00,376/- plus maintenance charges, as such, it can safely be said that letter dated 10.03.2023, Annexure D was not a valid possession being conditional on payment of amount aforesaid i.e. Rs.9,28,129/- plus other charges, which otherwise, has been held to be excessive, as explained above. Even the letter dated 10.03.2023, Annexure D itself says that it is a pre-possession letter and not an offer of possession of the unit in question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Utpal Trehan Versus DLF Home Developers Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4690 Of 2022, decided on July, 11th 2022, has clearly held that if possession letter is conditional on settling of accounts, the builder cannot argue that there was a valid offer of possession. Furthermore, there is nothing on record that completion certificate in respect of the project in question has been obtained by the builder from the competent Authorities.
Importance of occupation and completion certificates:-
16. As stated above, it is an admitted fact that completion certificate has still not been obtained by respondent no.1. It is significant to mention here that an Occupation Certificate and a Completion Certificate are two distinct documents, each serving a different purpose in the construction and approval process. An Occupation Certificate is issued by the competent authority after verifying that the completed building is safe and fit for human occupation. It confirms that the structure complies with all applicable laws, safety norms, zoning regulations, and environmental requirements. Only after obtaining the Occupation Certificate, is the owner legally permitted to occupy the building.
Similarly, a Completion Certificate certifies that the entire development works of the project has been carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plans, approvals, and applicable laws. These development works are broadly classified as external development works and internal development works, each having a distinct scope and purpose. External development works refer to infrastructure and services that are executed in the periphery of, or outside, the project area but are essential for the benefit and functioning of the project. These include the construction of roads and road systems, landscaping, water supply systems, sewage and drainage systems, electricity supply infrastructure such as transformers and substations, solid waste management and disposal facilities, and any other works required under local laws to support the project. Internal development works, on the other hand, relate to infrastructure and facilities developed within the project premises as per the sanctioned plans. These include internal roads and footpaths, water supply lines, sewers and drains, parks and open spaces, tree planting, street lighting, community buildings, systems for treatment and disposal of sewage and water, solid waste management and disposal, water conservation measures, energy management systems, fire protection and fire safety requirements, and social infrastructure such as educational, health, and other public amenities, along with any other works necessary for the benefit of the project. Accordingly, the Completion Certificate confirms that both external and internal development works have been duly completed, ensuring that the project is fully developed from an infrastructure and service perspective.
Mere obtaining of occupation certificate will not absolve the builder from its liability of obtaining completion certificate, before offering and delivery possession of the unit in question. Without the Completion Certificate, the possession, if offered, will be incomplete, illegal and not in conformity with the law. In Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 429; Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 416; Treaty Construction vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2019) 8 SCC 157 and recently also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667 has clearly held that the absence of completion certificate, unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by the builder.
In the case of Faqir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil appeal no.3302 of 2005, judgment dated 10.06.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a prayer for completion certificate and C&D Forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C&D Forms. It was further said that if the completion certificate is not issued, the builder owes a duty to make necessary application and obtain it. If the builder fails to do so, he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss/damage. The Hon'ble National Commission also, in Inderjit Singh Bakshi Versus S.M.V. Agencies Private Limited, FA No. 729 of 2013, decided on 30.11.2015 held that the allottee is not obliged to take possession of the unit in the absence of completion certificate. The Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) also, categorically held that legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of completion certificate issued by the competent authority.
In the present case, as stated above, the only communication issued qua possession is the letter dated 10.03.2023, Annexure D which itself says that it is a pre-possession letter and not an offer of possession of the unit in question and as such, do not constitute possession in the eyes of law, as neither occupation certificate nor completion certificates had been obtained by the said date.
17. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the respondent no.1 stopped paying the Pre-EMI interest to the bank/HDFC Limited after March 2023. Since the possession is yet to be lawfully delivered, owing to the absence of the Completion Certificate, respondent no.1 continue to remain liable to pay the Pre-EMI interest. Thus, the discontinuation of Pre-EMI payments by respondent no.1 is wholly unjustified, illegal, and constitutes a clear deficiency in service. In this view of the matter, it is held that respondent no.1 is liable to pay Pre-EMIs to respondent no.2/ HDFC Limited till the date of actual offer of possession of the unit in question to the appellants. However, it is made clear that, the remaining Pre-EMIs paid by the appellants/ complainants to respondent no.2 are refundable to them by respondent no.1.
Under above circumstances, if we order to refund the entire amount of Pre-EMIs paid by the appellants from their own pocket, to respondent no.2 from September 2023 onwards , that will meet the ends of justice.
18. As far objection taken by the appellant/ M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited to the effect that the matter being a contractual nature needs to be decided by the civil court only, it may be stated here that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to provide a simple, inexpensive, and speedy remedy to consumers. Any civil remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer Commissions. In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, it was held that failure to deliver possession amounts to deficiency in service and that buyers are entitled to seek relief under consumer law. In Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, (2023) 9 SCC 301, it has been reiterated that the consumer Commissions jurisdiction is not ousted merely because alternative remedies are available. In Imperial Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, (2022) 5 SCC 659, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that consumer complaints are maintainable even when issues pertain to contractual obligations in the real estate sector. Under these circumstances, objection taken in this regard by the appellant stands rejected.
Compensation for delay in possession payable to the appellants/ complainants:-
19. Now, we will like to decide as to what amount/extent of compensation should be granted to the appellants/complainants, for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the unit in question from 15.06.2018 onwards i.e. committed date of delivery of possession. On account of delay in actual delivery of possession of the unit to the appellants/complainants, they have definitely suffered and are suffering mental agony, hardships and financial loss. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon'ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the units. Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019, by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora's case (supra). In Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon'ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Recently also, the Hon'ble National Commission in Anshuman Sinha & Anr. Versus M/s. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1245 of 2016, decided on 01 February 2024 has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. As such, in the present case also, the appellants/complainants deserve just and fair compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession to them. It is therefore held that the appellants are entitled to get compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the amount paid by them to respondent no.1, from their own pocket/sources (not on the amount disbured by under the loan in question, as they are getting benefit of Pre-EMIs on the same from respondent no.1) till delivery of possession of the unit in question, complete in all respects.
20. As regards the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants/complainants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded towards mental agony and harassment, as well as litigation expenses, it is noted that the District Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of deficiency in service, and the mental harassment suffered by the appellants/complainants, the aforesaid amounts appear to be on the lower side and do not adequately compensate them. Accordingly, the compensation awarded towards mental agony and harassment is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-, and the litigation expenses are enhanced to Rs.35,000/-, in the interest of justice.
21. In view of above, Appeal No.172 of 2025 (Binod Kumar Tiwary and anr. Versus M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited and another), stands partly allowed and the order impugned passed by the District Commission in the consumer complaint bearing no.123 of 2024 stands modified. The respondent no.1/M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Private Limited/opposite party no.1 is directed as under:-
i. To hand over physical possession of the unit in question, to the appellants/complainants, complete in all respects i.e. after providing all the basic amenities and facilities and also obtaining completion certificate from the competent Authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of balance sale consideration from them i.e. Rs.3,34,862/- and other charges, strictly as per the agreement, but without charging any delayed payment interest or holding charges.
ii. To refund the entire amount of Pre-EMIs paid by the appellants/complainants from their own pocket, to respondent no.2, from April 2023 onwards till 30.11.2025, alongwith interest @9% p.a. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said payable amount of EMIs shall attract penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default realization.
iii. To pay Pre-EMIs to respondent no.2 from December 2025 onwards till possession of the unit in question is offered to the appellants/complainants, complete in all respects, as directed in sub-para no.(i) above.
iv. To pay to the appellants/complainants compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire amount received from the complainants, from their own pocket only (but not on the amount disbursed by respondent no.2 under loan) in respect of the unit in question, starting from the promised date of delivery of possession of the unit in question i.e. from 15.06.2018 (as per clause 7 of the agreement/allotment letter dated 16.06.2015) till 30.11.2025, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount of compensation for the said period shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount of compensation is paid to the appellants/complainants.
v. To pay to the appellants/complainants, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire paid by the complainants, from their own pocket only (but not on the amount disbursed by respondent no.2 under loan) in respect of the unit in question, w.e.f. 01.12.2025, onwards (per month), by the 10th of the following month till compliance of directions given in sub-para no.(i) above.
vi. To pay to the appellants/complainants, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing them mental agony & harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice; and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
vii. However, it is made clear that in case, respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 has paid any Pre-EMI or delayed compensation to the appellants/complainants beyond March 2023 or otherwise, the same shall be deductable from the awarded amounts aforesaid.
22. Complaint against respondent no.2/HDFC Limited stands dismissed with no order as to cost, subject to order passed by this Commission.
23. Consequently, Appeal no.178 of 2025 (M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Binod Kumar Tiwary and others) stands dismissed with no order as to cost, subject to modifications aforesaid.
24. Pending applications, if any, in these cases stand disposed off.
25. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected case file, forthwith.
26. The concerned appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission-I, be sent back immediately.
Pronounced 18.12.2025 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg ..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER