State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ambika Realcon Developers Private ... vs Ashwani Doegar on 11 November, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/108/2025
(Against the Order dated 29th November 2024 in Complaint DC/44/CC/516/2023 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)
AMBIKA REALCON DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/ DIRECTOR, SCO NO. 18-19,
1ST FLOOR, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR AMBIKA REALCON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO 18-19, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR 9,
CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
SH. ASHISH GARG THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AMBIKA REALCON DEVELOPERS PVT.
LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO 18-19, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR 9,
CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
ASHWANI DOEGAR
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O LATE SH. JAGDISH RAM DEOGAR, HOUSE NO. 1107, SECTOR-7,
PANCHKULA.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
MANJU DOEGAR
PRESENT ADDRESS - W/O SH. ASHWANI DEOGAR, HOUSE NO. 1107, SECTOR-7,
PANCHKULACHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PSEB HEAD
OFFICE, THE MALL, PATIALA.S.A.S NAGAR,PUNJAB.
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS S.E.C,PHASE 1, .SECTOR57, SAS NAGAR MOHALI ,
S.A.S NAGAR,PUNJAB.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
AMBIKA REALCON DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
DATED: 11/11/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH ============ Appeal No : A/108/2025 Date of Institution : 17/02/2025 Date of Decision : 11/11/2025
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd., through its Chandigarh Managing Director/Director, Corporate SCO 18-19, 1st Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Managing Director/ Director, M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Pvt. Ltd., SCO 18-19, 1 st Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Sh. Ashish Garg, Authorized Signatory, M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Pvt. Ltd., SCO 18-19, 1st Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
......... Appellants VERSUS
1. Ashwani Doegar son of Late Sh. Jagdish Ram Deogar.
2. Manju Doegar wife of Sh. Ashwani Doegar.
Both residents of House No.1107, Sector 7, Panchkula.
3. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, PSEB Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.
4. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its S.E. (C), Phase-I, Sector 57, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.
...... Respondents
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT
RAJESH K. ARYA MEMBER
PRESENT : Sh. Saurabh Bahmani, Advocate for the Appellants
Sh. Chakitan Vikram, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2
Sh. Harjeet Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 & 4.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER
1. The appellants, who were Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission), have preferred this appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 516 of 2023.
2. By the impugned order, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund the maintenance charges for July and August 2023 along with interest @9% per annum, to pay compensation of 50,000/- ( 35,000/- by the builder-appellants and 15,000/- by the electricity authorities), and 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, besides litigation expenses. It was further directed that in case of non-compliance within 45 days, the amounts mentioned at serial numbers (i) and (ii) would carry penal interest @12% per annum.
3. Briefly stated, the respondents/complainants purchased Apartment No. LP/Triomphe/D/1002 (10th Floor, Tower D) in the appellants' project "La Parisian" situated at Group Housing Site No. 2, IT City, Sector-66 Beta, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), vide Agreement for Sale dated 31.05.2023 for a total consideration of 1,55,54,750/-. At the time of executing the Agreement, the appellants collected a total of 24,000/- ( 12,000/- towards electricity connection and 12,000/- towards electricity meter and file processing charges). Despite this, the appellants did not obtain the electricity connection before offering possession. The complainants, through personal visits and e-mails, repeatedly requested the appellants to provide electricity and other promised amenities. The appellants assured that the connection would soon be installed, and accordingly, possession was taken on 05.09.2023, yet the flat remained without electricity. The appellants, however, started charging maintenance charges @ 5,259.86 per month from 01.07.2023, even prior to handing over possession. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants approached the District Commission.
4. The appellants/Ops No.1 & 2 admitted the sale transaction but pleaded that the complainants had executed a "No Dues and Satisfaction Certificate" dated 09.06.2023, acknowledging settlement of all accounts and satisfaction with the construction and facilities. They further contended that maintenance was payable as per Clause 11.3 of the Agreement for Sale; that the meter had been installed by the time of complaint; and that the delay, if any, was attributable to the electricity authorities (Opposite Parties No. 4 & 5). They denied any deficiency or unfair practice.
5. OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte by the learned District Commission vide order dated 05.01.2024 since it did not turn up despite due service.
6. The electricity authorities contended that they received the connection request from the appellants, along with a deposit of 5,080/- on 01.08.2023, and that after completing due formalities, the meter was installed on 30.10.2023. They claimed that there was no deficiency on their part.
7. On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Learned District Commission allowed the Consumer Complaint of the Complainant, as noticed in para no.2 of this order.
8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Learned District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
10. After analyzing the entire documents, evidence, and facts, the District Commission found that the builders (the appellants) had collected 24,000 from the complainants for the electricity connection and meter installation. However, they only paid 5,080 to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) on 01.08.2023. Even though they had taken the full amount from the complainants much earlier, they did not take timely action to ensure that the electricity connection was installed before handing over the apartment.
11. The record showed that the possession of the flat was given on 05.09.2023, but the electricity connection was provided only on 30.10.2023 almost two months later, and only after the complainants filed a consumer complaint. The District Commission observed that giving possession without basic facilities like electricity cannot be considered valid possession. This was held to be a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
12. The learned District Commission also found that the builders had started charging maintenance fees from July 2023 even before the complainants could actually live in the flat. In our considered view, maintenance charges can only be collected once the buyer can use the apartment and the common facilities. Charging these fees before that time was considered arbitrary, illegal, and a form of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the learned District Commission rightly ordered the builders to refund the maintenance fees for July and August 2023, with interest.
13. It was undisputed that 24,000 was collected for the electricity connection, but only 5,080 was paid to PSPCL two months later. The flat was handed over on 05.09.2023, but electricity came only on 30.10.2023 leaving the apartment without power for two months and unfit to live in.
14. It is settled proposition of law that giving possession of a flat without essential services like water, electricity, and sewage does not count as valid possession. The Supreme Court and National Consumer Commission have repeatedly held that handing over a flat without these amenities amounts to deficiency in service by the builder. Failing to provide basic infrastructure is a clear breach of duty and is punishable under the Consumer Protection Act.
15. In this case, the Appellants - builders collected the full amount but failed to get the connection installed before possession. This clearly shows negligence, deficiency in service, and an unfair trade practice. Their claim that the complainants signed a "No Dues Certificate" does not release them from responsibility. Such certificates are routine formalities and do not stop a consumer from complaining about deficiencies that continue after possession. A consumer does not lose their rights just because they signed such a document.
16. As for maintenance charges, builders can demand them only after giving habitable possession meaning the buyer can actually live in the apartment and use the facilities. Charging maintenance before that time is unfair and amounts to unjust enrichment, as the builder is taking money without providing any service. Under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this is considered an unfair trade practice.
17. Here, the builders started collecting maintenance from July 2023 even though possession was given only in September 2023 and even then, the flat had no electricity. This action was unreasonable and against consumer law. The learned District Commission was correct in ordering a refund of the months of July and August maintenance fees with interest.
18. Although PSPCL (the electricity company) took about two months to activate the connection, the builders were also at fault because they delayed applying for the connection. Therefore, both sides were responsible for the delay to some extent.
19. The learned District Commission fairly decided that the Appellants - Builders should pay 35,000 and PSPCL 15,000 as compensation a total of 50,000 for the deficiency in service. An additional 10,000 was awarded for mental agony and harassment. This amount was considered fair and reasonable given the inconvenience caused by the lack of electricity, which made the apartment unlivable.
20. In nutshell, the Appellants' act of handing over the flat without electricity and collecting maintenance before giving habitable possession clearly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Commission's findings were well-reasoned and supported by evidence.
21. There was no error or illegality in its order that would justify modifying it. The compensation and refund ordered were fair and in line with the inconvenience faced by the complainants.
22. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. The order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned District Commission is confirmed in full. The builders are directed to follow the learned District Commission's directions within the given time of 45 days. If they fail to do so, the due amount mentioned at Sr.No. (i) and (ii) of the order shall carry penal interest @12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of period of 45 days till realization, over and above payment of 10,000/- (at Sr.No. [iii]) as ligation expenses. No separate order for costs is made in this appeal.
23. Any pending application(s) in this appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
24. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
25. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the Ld. District Commission be sent back immediately.
Pronounced 11.11.2025 ..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER