State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamlesh vs M/S Cosmos Infra. Engineering (I) on 12 February, 2026
CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 03.01.2014
Date of reserving the order: 23.12.2025
Date of Decision: 12.02.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 05/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MRS. KAMLESH
W/O MR. PREM CHAND
2. MR. PREM CHAND
S/O MR. SHRI CHAND
BOTH R/O 7/69, MOHELLA JAMAL PURA,
NEAR S D GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
SONEPAT, HARYANA
...Complainants
(Through: Mr. Nawal Singh, Advocate
Mob.9811097292, 9911097292)
VERSUS
1. MR. VINOD MITTAL (MANAGING DIRECTOR)
COSMOS INFRA ENGINEERING (INDIA) LIMITED
RISHI APARTMENT, 4 BATTERY LANE,
RAJ PUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES,
DELHI-110054
2. COSMOS INFRA ENGINEERING (INDIA) LIMITED
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
RISHI APARTMENT, 4 BATTERY LANE,
RAJ PUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES,
DELHI-110054
...Opposite Parties
(Through: Mr. Dharmender Sehrawat,
Mr. Vikas Tomar, Mr. Ajay Singh,
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocates
Mob.9958002005)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 15
CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
Present: Complainant No.2 in person, who is husband of
Complainant No.1 alongwith Mr. Gourav Arora, counsel.
Mr. Vikas Tomar & Mr. Nimish Mishra, counsel for OPs
(Mob. 9811607053 & E-mail:[email protected])
PER : HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present complaint are that the Complainants entered into an agreement dated 16.09.2009 with the Opposite Parties for the purchase of an Expandable Home (Unit No. MG-53, later changed to Unit No. MG-08) with plot area of 150 Sq. Yds. and Super Built up Area with 1200 Sq. fts. in the project "Marigold Expandable Homes, Cosmos Greens, Bhiwadi" for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/-. The unit was purchased for their residential use and was to be completed and handed over by 15.12.2012. The Complainants made payments as demanded, including through a housing loan from DHFL.
2. The Opposite Parties issued various demand letters from time to time, and the Complainants made payments accordingly, including through a housing loan from DHFL. However, disputes arose regarding incorrect and overlapping demands, non- provision of promised features (such as compound wall, gate, ramp, and other specifications), and incomplete construction work. Despite repeated written communications by the DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR. Complainants highlighting major defects and pending works-- such as cracked terrace, damaged fittings, incomplete finishing, structural issues, and deviation from agreed specifications--the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defects.
3. Although the Opposite Parties issued offer of possession letters in May and July 2012 and continued to demand payments with interest, the unit was not complete and was not fit for possession. It was mutually settled on 19.10.2012 that the balance payment would be made at the time of handing over possession after completion of pending work. However, the Opposite Parties neither completed the pending work nor handed over possession.
4. The Complainants allege deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, delay in possession, wrongful demand of interest at 24% per annum, non-payment of interest on advance amounts paid prior to change of unit, and mental harassment caused due to prolonged delay. Despite several reminders and visits to the Opposite Parties' office, no satisfactory action was taken.
5. Hence, the present complaint has been filed seeking interest on the amounts paid, compensation for delay and mental agony, completion of pending work or cost thereof, litigation expenses, and other appropriate reliefs.
6. Upon service of notice, the Opposite Parties filed their written statement and raised preliminary objections that the present DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR. complaint is liable to be dismissed as no prima facie case or deficiency in service is made out against them. It is alleged that the Complainant has filed the complaint with mala fide intentions, out of greed and ulterior motives, merely to extract compensation and harass the Opposite Party.
7. The Opposite Party has further alleged that the Complainant has suppressed material facts and is guilty of concealment, particularly regarding non-payment of dues as per the agreed payment schedule despite repeated notices and reminders. It is contended that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant and that the complaint is false, frivolous, and filed as a pressure tactic to avoid payment of outstanding amounts. Additionally, the Opposite Party has asserted that it has always acted bona fide and provided proper services. It is also claimed that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of a 'consumer', as the property was allegedly booked for investment and resale purposes, and the complaint has been filed only to delay payment due to the inability to sell the property.
8. The Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainants entered into an agreement dated 16.09.2009 for purchase of an expandable home in the Bhiwadi project. However, it is denied that the sale consideration was Rs. 24,00,000/-, stating that the total agreed price was Rs. 26,30,000/- as per the signed payment DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR. schedule. It is further alleged that the Complainants were investors, having purchased other properties as well, and therefore do not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act.
9. The Opposite Party has stated that Unit No. MG-53 was originally allotted but was changed to Unit No. MG-08 at the request of the Complainants, which was duly accepted by them, while all other terms and conditions remained unchanged. It is contended that demand letters were issued as per the stage of construction and that the Complainants delayed payments by more than 200 days. The Opposite Party denies receiving certain letters allegedly sent by the Complainants and asserts that there was no overlapping in the demands. It is further stated that all amenities and construction were completed as per the agreement, and that the Complainants are liable to pay interest on delayed payments.
10. The Opposite Party maintains that the unit was completed in all respects and possession was validly offered on 01.05.2012 after completion of construction. It denies the existence of any defects or pending work and alleges that the complaints regarding defects were false and raised only to avoid payment of outstanding dues. Subsequent reminders and demand letters were also sent, but the Complainants allegedly failed to clear the dues.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
11. Regarding the settlement dated 19.10.2012, the Opposite Party states that it was conditional upon immediate payment, which was not made by the Complainants, and therefore stood withdrawn. It is further contended that only minor finishing work, which is usually completed at the time of final possession, remained pending, and the delay in taking possession was solely due to non-payment by the Complainants.
12. The Opposite Party denies allegations of deficiency in service, unfair or restrictive trade practices, fraud, or misrepresentation. It asserts that possession was offered in 2012 after completion of work, but the Complainants deliberately avoided taking possession as they had purchased the property for investment and resale at profit. It also denies liability to pay any interest to the Complainants and claims that, instead, the Complainants are liable to pay interest on delayed payments and holding charges. The Opposite Party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
13. The Complainant filed a rejoinder denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint.
14. The Complainants have filed their evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
15. The Opposite Party had also filed evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove its averments on record. Evidence by way of affidavit is duly supported by an affidavit of Mr. Umesh Arora, Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party/company.
16. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of both the parties.
17. We have carefully perused the material available on record as well as written submissions filed by both the parties.
18. The question for adjudication before us is "whether the Complainant is 'Consumer'?"
19. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
"Section 2(1)(d) Consumer" means any person who- i. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or ii. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose] DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment;
20. Further, we would like to refer the judgment 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 follows:
"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 Complainant have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in KavitAhuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainant are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
21. Further, in Anju Vinod Saraswat (Mrs.) Vs. Sahara Prime City Limited IV (2022) CPJ 206 (NC), it was held as under:
"Onus of establishing that complainant was dealing in real estate, i.e., in purchase and sale of plots/flats for commercial purpose to earn profits lies upon opposite party."
22. In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a bald statement that the Complainants are not a 'Consumer' and was merely investor, who booked the unit to sell it at higher prices, but when he was unable to sell it at higher price, he stopped making payment. However, on perusal of the record; we fail to DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR. find any material on record which shows that the Complainants were involved in the business of selling and purchasing of flats/shops on regular basis. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Complainants are 'Consumer' as defined in the Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in negative.
23. The further question for adjudication before us is "whether the Opposite Parties were deficient in providing its services to the Complainants?"
24. The Complainants have sought waiver of interest levied by the Opposite Parties. However, the Complainants have failed to clearly establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as being discussed in para infra.
25. The demand of interest and other charges raised by the Opposite Parties are required to be examined in the light of the Agreement to Sub-Lease executed between the parties. The Opposite Parties have drawn our attention to Article 6(C) and Article 10 of the Agreement to Sub-Lease, which govern holding charges, maintenance charges, and other liabilities of the intending Sub- Lessee in case of delay or default.
26. Article 6(C) of Sub Lease agreement is reproduced as under:
"C. Holding Charges DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
i. It is agreed that in the event, the Intending Sub Lessee fails to take possession of the said unit within the stipulated time and the Developer /Principal Lessee condones such delay, Intending Sub Lessee shall pay to the Developer/Principal Lessee the following amounts:
ii. Holding charges @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only) per sq. ft. per month of the saleable area for the period of such delay;
iii. Interest @ 24% per annum compounded quarterly on the amount due as mentioned in the notice for possession from the due date till date of the payment; iv. Maintenance Charges at such rate as may be decided by the Developer /Principal Lessee from the deemed date of possession as per notice of possession."
27. Article 6(C) of the Agreement clearly stipulates that in the event of failure of the intending Sub-Lessee to comply with the terms or to take possession within the stipulated period, the intending Sub- Lessee shall be liable to pay holding charges, interest on outstanding dues, and maintenance charges as applicable.
28. Article 10 of Sub Lease agreement is reproduced as under:
"ARTICLE-10: Maintenance Services i. Developer/Principal Lessee hereby represents and the Intending Sub Lessee acknowledges and mandates that upon completion of the said Group Housing Complex, the Developer/ Principal Lessee shall undertake the responsibility of providing necessary maintenance services directly or through its nominated agency (hereinafter referred to as "MAINTENANCE AGENCY").
ii. The Intending Sub Lessee hereby irrevocably agrees to execute 'Maintenance Agreement' with the MAINTENANCE AGENCY at the time of taking over the possession of the said Unit. The Intending Sub Lessee further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of the Maintenance Agreement. The Developer /Principal Lessee or the MAINTENANCE AGENCY reserves the right to change, modify, amend or impose, from time to time, additional conditions in the Maintenance Agreement at its discretion.
DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
iii. The MAINTENANCE AGENCY shall carry out the maintenance of common services and facilities pertaining to the said Group Housing Complex and the Intending Sub Lessee expressly agrees to pay all charges and dues as may be demanded from time to time by the MAINTENANCE AGENCY for maintenance of common services and facilities.
iv. The MAINTENANCE AGENCY shall determine the rate of maintenance charges from time to time and demand the same on pro-rata basis for the saleable area and the Intending Sub Lessee undertakes to pay the maintenance charges from the date of Notice of Possession."
29. Similarly, Article 10 of the Agreement provides for maintenance obligations and the liability of the intending Sub-Lessee to pay maintenance and related charges as determined by the Developer or its nominated agency.
30. From the perusal of the aforesaid articles, it is evident that the Agreement executed between the parties specifically provides for levy of charges and interest in case of delay or default in payment. The Complainants have not been able to place any material on record to show that the said articles are arbitrary, illegal, or unenforceable.
31. The Opposite Party has filed the calculation sheet which is now being identified as Annexure 'A'. The same is reproduced as under
for reference:
Summary of Dues M.G. -8 (Kamlesh) 1200 Sq. Ft.
Particulars Amount GST Total
Electric Connection Including 100000 18000 118000
Power Backup Charges 75000 13500 88500
Interest on above 252000 00 252000
DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 15
CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
Pending Interest 288593 51947 340540
Holding Charges 870000 156600 1026600
Maintaince Charges Including 958048 00 958049
GST& Interest
Total Dues 2561642 222047 2783689
32. The said calculation sheet has not been disputed by the Complainants. In the absence of any cogent rebuttal, the calculation and demands raised by the Opposite Party appear to be in accordance with the contractual terms agreed between the parties.
33. The main grievance of the Complainants is that the unit was incomplete and had several defects and deviations from the agreed specifications. In Para No. 5 of the complaint, the complainants have stated that certain construction defects existed which needed rectification. These allegations have been specifically denied by the Opposite Party. However, the Complainants have not filed any independent technical report, inspection report, expert opinion, or even photographs to prove the alleged defects. Mere statements without any supporting evidence are not enough to hold the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service.
34. It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party issued the offer of possession letters in 01.05.2012. The Complainants have not produced any evidence to show that the construction was so incomplete that possession could not have been taken. On the DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
contrary, the record shows that some payments were still due at the time the possession was offered. The agreement between the parties clearly provides that possession would be handed over only after payment of the full sale consideration and other applicable charges.
35. The contention of the Complainants regarding the wrongful demand of interest @ 24% per annum is governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement. When the parties enter into a contract with full knowledge and agree to specific clauses relating to delayed payments, the same cannot subsequently be challenged unless shown to be arbitrary or illegal. No such illegality has been proved in the present case.
36. With regard to electricity and power back-up facility, Article 9(f) of the Agreement specifically provides as under:
"That the Developer/Principal Lessee shall install additional equipments for Power back-up facility for common services to all units in the said Group Housing Complex at no additional installation cost to the Intending Sub Lessee. It is however, agreed and accepted by the Intending Sub Lessee herein that the availability of the said Power Back-up facility shall be subject to regular payment of charges towards the said facility. Further it is agreed by the Intending Sub Lessee that the said Power Back-up facility is an additional feature and he / she shall not claim for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, in the event of failure on part of the Developer/Principal Lessee or the Maintenance Agency providing the same. It is agreed by the Intending Sub Lessee that the said Power Back-up Facility shall be usage based and the Intending Sub Lessee shall regularly pay its proportionate share of costs, charges, expenses, etc. incurred by the Maintenance Agency in providing the same."
DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026
KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR.
37. A perusal of the Article 9(f) of the Agreement makes it clear that the power back-up facility was an additional feature subject to usage charges and that no claim for loss or damage could be raised in the event of failure in providing the same. Therefore, the grievance of the Complainants on this aspect is also not sustainable in view of the contractual terms.
38. We also deem it appropriate to refer to the judgment in B. Rudragouda vs. M/s Godrej Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. decided on 06.12.2022, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that as per terms of the Agreement, the complainant is liable to pay holding charges from the date of offer of possession.
39. The present case is squarely covered by the said judgment, and therefore the complainant is required to pay holding charges from 01.05.2012 till the date of taking possession of the flat.
40. The alleged settlement dated 19.10.2012 has not been supported by any duly executed and binding document placed on record. Even otherwise, there is nothing to show that the Complainants tendered the balance amount unconditionally in terms of the said alleged settlement. In the absence of proof of readiness and willingness on their part, the delay in taking possession cannot be attributed solely to the Opposite Party.
41. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it appears that the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of alleged DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 15 CC/05/2014 DOD:12.02.2026 KAMLESH & ANR. VS. M/S COSMOS INFRA ENG. P. LTD. & ANR. non-payment of instalments and contractual obligations. The Complainants have failed to establish by cogent and convincing evidence that there was any material deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
42. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Complainants have not been able to prove their case.
43. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is clarified that complainant can opt for possession after making due payment as on date as has already been discussed in para supra.
44. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
45. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
46. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced 12.02.2026 DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 15