State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sushma Mehta vs Arn Infra. Pvt.Ltd. on 11 May, 2026
CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 25.03.2013
Date of hearing: 02.02.2026
Date of Decision: 11.05.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO. - 169/2013
IN THE MATTER OF
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA,
S/O MR. JAWAHAR LAL MEHTA,
R/O: A-58, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI-18.
(Through: Mr. Varun Kathuria, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
ARN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR,
9, BIRLA HOUSE, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD,
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005.
(Through: Mr. Vivek Singh &
Ms. Eesha Shonak, Advocate)
...Opposite Party
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 16
CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Varun Kathuria, counsel for the Complainant appeared
through VC.
Ms. Eesha Shonak, Counsel for the OP appeared through VC.
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 Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) direct the Respondent/Opposite Party to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the site, complete in all respects to the Complainant;
b) direct the Respondent/Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.
15,00,000/- to the Complainant, as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension, agony suffered by the Complainant;
c) direct the Respondent/Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 14,56,000/- to the Complainant, being the monthly committed return due to the Complainant wef August, 2010, till March, 2013 with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum;
d) direct the Respondent/Opposite Party to pay a sum of 45,500/- each month to the Complainant, wef April 2013, pendente lite till date of handing over of possession of the unit complete in all respects/date of refund along with interest @ 18% per annum;
e) award costs of the present complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the Respondent/Opposite Party;
f) pass such other or further orders, as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Opposite Party is a Company in the Real Estate Industry and is engaged in the activities of developing, constructing and promoting a project called "The Globus", on a piece of land measuring 15 acres at plot No. 22, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, U.P. The Complainant booked/purchased a total area 1000 sq. ft. on the fourth floor of the said project for a total sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- on 12.04.2008. At the time of purchasing the said unit, the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that the entire complex would be ready and complete in all respects by December, 2009, and till the time, possession of the unit, handed over to her, the Opposite Party undertook to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 45,500/-, less TDS, each month as committed return w.e.f. January, 2010 till the unit is ready for possession/use/occupation. Accordingly, Complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- at the time of execution of the MOU dated 12.04.2008.
3. The Complainant has further stated that she has received the monthly committed returns till June, 2010 and received a letter of completion dated 31.08.2010, wherein the Opposite Party informed her that the project was complete and ready for occupation. The Complainant was asked to visit the office of the Opposite Party for making the balance payment so that unit could be handed over to her. The Complainant then visited the office of the Opposite Party and met Mr. O.P. Sharma who is the General Manager of the Opposite Party who informed her that a unit having a total area of 1018 sq. ft., was allotted to him. Further, Mr. O. P. Sharma also gave him a final breakdown of the payments to be made, the said amount included charges for one time lease rent @ 75 per sq. ft., electrification charges @ Rs. 85 per sq. ft., car parking charges @ Rs. 1,50,000/- and charges for the increase in area, after adjusting the amounts for the monthly returns to be given to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant demanded ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
to see the completion certificate issued by the competent authority but she was informed that a copy of the same shall be sent to her in a few days as there was some finishing work to be completed on the site.
4. The Complainant had in all paid a total amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- to the Opposite Party. Complainant was pressurized to sign some documents as she was threatened with cancellation of the unit and forfeiture of money if the same were not signed immediately. The Complainant having no other option other than relying on the above representations made the payment for the above amount and a letter of occupation was subsequently issued by the Opposite Party. The said letter unilaterally stated that the Opposite Party will not be paying the monthly commitment charges as the unit has been handed over to the Complainant, which is false and incorrect as no such arrangement had been agreed to by the parties. The Complainant being fully aware that the project of the Opposite Party was nowhere near completion, declined to execute the same.
5. The Complainant, on several occasions approached and requested the Opposite Party to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the site, complete in all respects alongwith the commitment charges due but the Opposite Party has blatantly refused to take any action and has avoided or delayed to deal with the subject citing one excuse or another. The Opposite Party has now hired goons and bouncers who are present at the construction site and they forcibly stop people from entering or from taking photographs at the site. The Complainant had further sent a legal notice dt. 08.03.2013 to the Opposite Party demanding the payment of the commitment charges as per the MOU and for handing over of possession of the unit complete in all respects but was of no avail. Aggrieved from the above circumstances, the Complainant approached this Commission.
6. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and filed the written statement whereby contending that the present complaint should be dismissed as the ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
Complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as the Complainant had purchased the said space for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party further submitted that immediately upon grant of completion certificate, the Opposite Party started looking for prospective lessee for the said project so that the same can be put on lease and the rentals could be remitted to the investors in terms of the M.O.U. However, due to slump in the economy and worldwide recession in IT industry and factors beyond the control of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party could not find any lessee. It is stated that the NOIDA authority had allotted the plot in question for IT / ITES project. There was huge demand of IT / ITES project. However, by the time building was ready, there was total slump in IT industry and it became impossible for the Opposite Party to find a lessee for the building. The said impossibility was not within the contemplation of the Opposite Party at the time of execution of MOU. Therefore, no case of deficiency in service is made out for alleged inability to get the building leased. Pressing the aforesaid, the counsel for the Opposite Party prayed for the dismiss the present complaint with cost.
7. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder wherein stated that the said project is neither complete, nor ready for occupation and the certificate received for the project is merely a conditional part occupancy certificate. The Opposite Party has not given actual physical possession of the units to the Complainant or other buyers.
8. Both parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit and also filed the Written Arguments on their behalf.
9. The Complainant, in Written Arguments have relied upon photographs dated 12.05.2015 of the project site and reply submitted by the Opposite Party before the EOW and filed before the Ld. M.M. at the Tis Hazari stating that the project "The Globus" is neither complete nor ready as on date as he had postponed the ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
development of the commercial project. Furthermore, the Complainant has also placed on record a copy of the public notice dt. 22.11.2014 issued by GNIDA showing that a revised site plan has been submitted for the project site. The Complainant has also relied on the minutes of the meeting held between the Globus investors welfare association and the directors of the Opposite Party/Company held on 05.12.2011 that the project "The Globus" was not complete or ready in 2010.
10. The Opposite Party, through its Written Arguments has stated that MoU dated 12.04.2008 between both parties clearly enshrined the fact that the project was for leasing out office spaces to the IT industry and it was further stated in the MoU that the Opposite Party shall put in efforts to get the first lease deed done for the convenience and benefit of the Complainant. However, the same was subject to Force Majeure clause in the MoU. The MoU also provided that the Opposite Party /Company shall pay the assured returns till the completion of the aforesaid project. The terms and conditions of the MoU dated 12.04.2008 were duly accepted and signed by Complainant and was thus considered binding on both the parties. The Opposite Party has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:
a) Ashok Thapar v Supreme Indosaigon Associates & Ors., II (2016) CPJ160(NC);
b) Smt. Sharda Mahajan Vs. Maple Leaf International Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 139 CompCas 718 (Delhi);
c) Hon'ble NCDRC judgment titled "Varun Ahuja & Ors. Versus M3M India Private Limited & Ors." Consumer Case No. 139 of 2023.
11. We have perused the material available on record.
12. The fact that the Complainant had booked a unit with the Opposite Party is evident from the MoU dated 12.04.2008. Further, payment to the extent of Rs.
ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
17,00,000/- by the Complainant to the Opposite Party is also not disputed by the Opposite Party.
13. The first question to be adjudicated is whether the Complainant fall within the ambit of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
14. The Opposite Party has contended that the Complainant is not Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Complainant had purchased the space in the project for commercial purpose i.e. to trade the Space and earn profits in IT towers. The Complainant never intended to use the Space, but, had acted as an Investor.
15. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-
1122/2018 titled Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainants has purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainants is 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
16. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission, it flows that it is for the Opposite Party to prove that the space purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainant. In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainant has purchased a space of 1000 sq ft for commercial purpose and on perusal of the record before us, we fail to find any material which shows that the Complainant ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or spaces on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such spaces. MOU dated 12.04.2008 mentions about booking of a unit measuring 1000 sq. ft. on fourth floor. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative.
17. The main question for consideration is whether the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant.
18. The Complainant submitted that the said project "The Globus" is neither complete nor fit for occupation, and the certificate received by the Opposite Party is merely a conditional part-occupancy certificate. The Opposite Party has failed to deliver actual physical and vacant possession of the units to the Complainant and other buyers. Even buyers who have executed tri-partite sub- lease deeds with the competent authority have not received possession of their units till date. The Complainant further submitted that the units remain unmarked, undemarcated, and cannot be locked or secured. The Complainant had booked the unit with the legitimate intention of utilizing it for self-use and earning her livelihood. However, the final use is irrelevant at present, as the project remains incomplete and no unit has been allotted till date.
19. On the other hand, the Opposite Party submitted that the booking was done in April, 2008 and the project was completed by September 2010. A Completion Certificate was issued by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority on 01.09.2010, and an Occupation Letter was issued to the Complainant. Based on these facts, the Opposite Party contends that the complaint is barred by limitation. Further, the Opposite Party submits that due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the economic slowdown and worldwide recession in the ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
IT industry is beyond their control and she was unable to find a lessee for the units. Therefore, the term of the MoU related to facilitating the first lease deed became frustrated. The Opposite Party further denies any deficiency in service or breach of contractual obligations.
20. On perusal of the record, we find that the Opposite Party has relied upon the certificate dated 01.09.2010 wherein the Greter Noida Industrial Development Authority has provided the Part Occupancy Certificate to the Opposite Party for the said project. However, the Opposite Party has failed to file any completion certificate or occupancy certificate on record. Therefore, there is no document with regard to the completion of the said project as alleged by the Opposite Party.
21. At this stage we deem it appropriate to refer to First Appeal no. 2082 of 2018 titled as M/S. A.R.G Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs Amit Kumar & Anr. decided on 02.03.2019, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"More importantly, the possession of the house could not have been and cannot be offered to the Complainants without obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate. During the course of hearing, I specifically asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant had obtained the requisite Occupancy Certificate in respect of the villa allotted to the Complainants. The learned counsel, on instructions states that no Occupancy Certificate is required for the individual unit. However, I am unable to accept the said contention. No house can be allowed to be occupied without obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate. Therefore, the appellant ought to have obtained the requisite Occupancy Certificate before it could offer possession of the allotted villa to the Complainants"
22. We further deem it appropriate to refer to M/S Treaty Construction vs M/S Ruby Tower Co Op Hsg. Society reported in AIR 2019 SC 3676, wherein the Apex court has held as under:
ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
"3. As the OP has given possession to the members of the Society without obtaining Occupancy Certificate, the possession of allottees has become illegal. As the purchasers have paid full consideration of the flats, they are entitled to have legal possession and legal right and title. It is also seen from the observation of the State Commission that the appellants/opposite parties have not replied to the queries raised by the Municipal Corporation and therefore, they themselves were negligent and deficient in taking steps for getting the Occupancy Certificate. As complaint has been filed by the society, it is essential that the possession of its members is regularized and title of the members as well as of the Society is legalized. This can only be legalized if OP obtains Occupancy Certificate. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the OP to obtain the Occupancy Certificate in a time bound manner."
23. It is clear from the above dicta that the builder cannot offer the possession of the flat without obtaining the requisite occupation certificate and no house can be allowed to be occupied without obtaining Occupancy Certificate from the concerned authority.
24. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority, (2025) 1 SCC 422 Civil Appeals Nos. 2809-810 of 2024 with No. 6344 of 2024 decided on 06.09.2024 reproduced below: -
19. The facts as recorded above are not disputed. Even NCDRC did not find any contradiction in the factual aspect. The only issue is as to whether the possession as offered on 4-12-2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and also whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with ADA or not. Despite specific requests and demands by the appellant for providing the completion certificate and firefighting clearance, ADA failed to produce the same. The Senior Counsel for the appellant has ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission that offer for possession would be invalid where the completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate have not been obtained by the developer i.e.ADA:
(a)Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise
(b) Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India
(c) Treaty Construction v. Ruby Tower Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
20.It is then submitted that even before NCDRC the completion certificate and the firefighting clearance certificate could not be produced by the respondent ADA.
21. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that under the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016 as also the U.R Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 offer of possession would be valid only after a developer obtains the completion certificate, which had not been done so far by the developer ADA in the present case. On behalf of the appellant, it is also argued that the demand of Rs 3,43,178 along with alleged offer of possession dated 14-2-2014 was totally unjustified and illegal. It was also submitted that the appellant having deposited the amount of approximately Rs 60 lakhs and that too after taking loan from financial institutions, cannot be deprived of counting the interest from the date of deposit rather than from the date of filing of the complaint. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
(a) GDA v. Balbir Singh
(b)Rishab Singh Chandel v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
(c) LDA v. M.K. Gupta
(d) Marvel Omega Builders (P) Ltd. v. Shrihari Gokhale
(e) Experion Developers (P) Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor
30. The appellant has rightly cited relevant precedents to bolster this argument. In Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, this Court held that possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
compelled to take possession in such circumstances. The Court in that case held: (SCC pp. 200-201, paras 20-23) of NCDRC "20. Finally while, we dealing cannot with resist the but appellants comment' on contention the perfunctory that it approach was the duty of the respondents to apply for and obtain the completion certificate from KMC and that the respondents ought to have been directed to act in accordance with law. The observation made by NCDRC of the respondents having successfully argued that it was not their fault, that no completion certificate of the project could be obtained, is clearly contrary to the statutory provisions.
21. Sub-section (2) of Section 403 of the KMC Act was referred to by NCDRC in the impugned order in Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise Sub-section (1) thereof, which finds no reference therein, requires every person giving notice under Section 393 or Section 394 or every owner of a building or a work to which the notice relates to send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Municipal Commissioner a notice in writing of completion of erection of building or execution of work within one month of such completion/erection, accompanied by a certificate in the form specified in the rules made in this behalf as well as to give to the Municipal Commissioner all necessary facilities for inspection of such building or work.
22. Section 393 mandates every person, who intends to erect a building, to apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Municipal Commissioner in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed together with such documents and plans. Similarly, Section 394 also mandates every person who intends to execute any of the works specified in clause (b) to clause (m) of sub- section (1) of Section 390 to apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Municipal Commissioner in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed.
ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
23. It is, therefore, evident on a conjoint reading of Sections 403, 390 and 394 of the KMC Act that it is the obligation of the person intending to erect a building or to execute works to apply for completion certificate in terms of the Rules framed thereunder. It is no part of the flat owner's duty to apply for a completion certificate. When the respondents had applied for permission/sanction to erect, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990 (hereafter "the 1990 Rules" for short) were in force. Rule 26 of the 1990 Rules happens to be the relevant rule. In terms of sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 26 thereof, the obligation as cast was required to be discharged by the respondents. Evidently, the respondents observed the statutory provisions in the breach." This position is supported by other decisions, including Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure and Treaty Construction, where the absence of these certificates was found to constitute a deficiency in service.
33.On the other hand, ADA, despite making an offer of possession in 2014, did not fulfil its statutory obligations by providing the requisite completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate, both of which are essential for a valid and lawful offer of possession. The absence of these documents, which were also not furnished before NCDRC, unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by ADA."
25. From the aforesaid dicta, the well-settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments such as Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023) and Treaty Construction vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2019), wherein it was held that the failure on the part of a real estate developer to obtain mandatory completion certificates and occupancy certificates constitutes a clear and actionable deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019). The Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently held that such failure amounts to a breach of statutory obligations imposed by ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026 MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
regulatory authorities, and the buyers are entitled to appropriate relief in such circumstances.
26. In the present case, the Opposite Party has failed to produce any valid Completion Certificate to demonstrate the lawful completion of the project. Instead, the only document shown is a conditional part-occupancy certificate, which itself does not clarify which building of the project or specific portion of the project, it pertains to. Such inability or deliberate avoidance to furnish proper and valid completion and occupancy certificates squarely reflects a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and misrepresentation towards the Complainant. Further, the letter dated 31.08.2010 annexed as Annexure C-III attached with the complaint is wholly arbitrary and illegal in its claim. It merely states:
"We are happy to inform you that our prestigious project titled 'THE GLOBUS' at Knowledge Park-II, Sector-I.T., Plot No. 22, Greater Noida has achieved completion and is ready for occupation.
In this connection we would request you to visit our office between 2.00 pm to 6.00 pm with prior appointment on Dt. 14thOctober 2010 Failing which the next appointment would be taken within 7 days and collect the Occupancy Letter for your booked space.
Please note that the Occupancy Letter of the aforesaid booked space shall be handed over to you upon clearance of all dues towards the purchase of the aforesaid space unit..."
27. From the above discussion, it is clear that such vague and conditional documents cannot substitute the statutory requirement of obtaining and furnishing valid Completion and Occupancy Certificates. Additionally, the Opposite Party's failure to discharge this primary obligation amounts to gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and actionable breach of the Agreement, entitling the Complainant to appropriate relief in accordance with law.
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
28. In view of above discussion and facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services as the Opposite Party failed to get the Occupancy Certificate and completion certificate from the concerned authority regarding completion of said IT/ITeS Complex, THE GLOBUS, Greater Noida. Further, the Opposite Party has even failed to file copy of completion certificate during the proceedings. Therefore, we find that the IT/ITeS complex of the Opposite Party is still not complete and possession of the booked property cannot be handed over to the Complainant, even at this belated stage.
29. As per memorandum of understating dated 12.04.2008 between both parties, Opposite Party / Developer has undertaken to make a payment of Rs. 45,500/- less TDS as applicable every calendar month to the investor as a committed return w.e.f. January, 2010 upto the date of handing over possession to the Complainant, herein. Further, the Complainant has made a total payment of Rs. 17,00,000/- to Opposite Party till the filing of Complaint and had not received any monthly committed return w.e.f. July, 2010.
30. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party as under-
A. To pay/refund Rs. 17,00,000/- to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
B. To pay an amount @ Rs. 45,500/- per month towards committed return w.e.f. July, 2010 till Actual date of payment to the Complainant within 60 days of this judgment.
C. To pay interest @ 6% p.a. to Complainant calculated from the date on which each payment of committed return was due to the Opposite Party till actual date of payment within 60 days of this judgment.
ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 16 CC/169/2013 D.O.D.:11.05.2026
MRS. SUSHMA MEHTA VS. ARN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
D. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to pay the amount as per the aforesaid clauses (A), (B) & (C), the Opposite Party shall further pay interest @ 9% p.a. till the actual date of payment.
31. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the fact of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of:
A. Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
32. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
33. 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.
34. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
11.05.2026 LR-AJ ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 16