National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mona Arora W/O. Jitender Kumar vs M/S S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. on 4 December, 2025
•hw
04.12.2025IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 03.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.12.2025
SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2025
(Against the Order dated 25.03.2025 in Appeal No.480/2022 of the Haryana
State Commission, Panchkula)
WITH
IA/7762-7763/2025, IA/11026/2025 (Condonation of delay, Exemption from
dim documents, C/d)
Mona Arora Appellant (s)
r/o A-112, The Blaire
DLF-5, Sector-54, Gurugram
Haryana
Versus
M/s S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s)
4th Floor, The Plaza, M G Road
Gurugram-122002
Also at
77, SS House, Sector 44, Gurugram
Haryana-122003
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Appellant(s) Mr. Bhavook Chauhan, Advocate
Mr. Tushar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Prithvi Singh Narula, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) Mr.Pravin Bahadur, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate
Ms. Kavya Uppal, Advocate
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
SA/349/2025 "Page 1 of 21
I
ORDER
1. The present Second Appeal (SA) has been filed by the Appellant against the Respondent as detailed above, under section 51 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 25.03.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 480 of 2022 in which order dated 21.07.2022 of Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 527 of 2020 was challenged, inter alia praying for:-
a. Setting aside the order dated 25.03.2025 of the state Commission b. Directing the respondent / Developer to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to the Appellant on the principal amount of Rs.50,36,473/- from the date of its deposit with the Respondent / Developer c. Directing the respondent Developer to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Appellant on account of mental agony and harassment.
2. While the Appellant (s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission, the Respondent was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission. For sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before District Commission.
SA/349/2025 "Page 2 of 23
F
3. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 01.7.2025. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.09.2025 ( Complainant) and 29.10.2025 ( Opposite Party) respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the SA, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that complainant booked a flat with the opposite party and paid the booking amount of Rs.6,77,348/-. Thereafter, allotment letter was issued to her by the OP. Complainant entered into buyer agreement with the OP for allotment of residential flat No. IB, 1st Floor, Building No.1 in the project of the OP 'The Leaf at SS Society, located at Sector.84-85, Gurugram. The total consideration of the flat was agreed to be Rs. 1,67,86,200/-. The Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 27.10.2014. The complainant paid Rs.54,16,522 till date. As per clause 8 of the agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months and three months grace period to the Opposite Party ( in all 39 months) from the date of signing of the Flat Buyer Agreement i.e. till 25.01.2018 but OP failed to fulfil its promise of delivering the flat on time. Complainant sent several emails dated 23.06.2017, 06.09.2017, 31.10.2017, 06.02.2018, 11.04.2018, 24.11.2018 and 16.08.2018 with regard to flat in question. The OP also raised the demands for payments vide various emails. As per the buyer agreement, neither the possession has been granted to her nor any satisfactory or convincing reply was given to her in response to her queries. Complainant sent legal notice dated 15.01.2020 to the OP for refunding the entire amount SA/349/2025 "Page 3 of 23 I i as paid by her and the OP replied to the legal notice. The OP despite several emails and legal notice, did not refund the deposited amount alongwith interest. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Commission and District Commission vide order dated 21.07.2022 partly allowed the complaint with direction to the Opposite Party to refund the principal amount of Rs.50,36,473/- to the complainant but without interest, holding both the complainant and Builder at fault. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 25.03.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is before us now in the present SA.
5. Appellant has challenged the said Order dated 25.03.2025 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
a. The Appellant did not seek termination of the flat buyer agreement dated 27.10.2014 till issuance of legal notice which is beyond the period of 6 years and not within 13 months of date of signing of agreement. At the time of issuance of legal notice the appellant for the first time asked for refund of the money.
b. The Respondent had admittedly received an amount of Rs.50,36,473/- by 29.03.2015 from the Appellant and there was no delay on the part of the appellant in payment of the part consideration as per allotment letter. c. The agreement was executed on 24.10.2014 and the demand was raised on 30.08.2017 i.e. after 34 months and there was no occasion for the SA/349/2025 "Page 4 of 23 i 9 Appellant to have stopped making payment of any instalments to the respondent after 13 months from the date of execution of the agreement. d. Last date of handing over the flat after having obtained occupation certificate was 25.01.2018, however, the Developer had no funds to complete the project even till July 2020. In the year 2017, the Appellant made a site visit to the project site whereupon she found that project was nowhere near completion, which fact get confirmed from the finding of the District Commission that respondent could not complete the project even after 7 years from the date of agreement.
e. State Commission failed to take note that it was not merely the duty of the Appellant to make timely payment but it was also the duty of the respondent Developer to ensure timely completion of its project. f. Appellant did not seek termination of the agreement in any of her emails even till 24.11.2018 nor did she ask for any refund till such time, rather she had shown her interest in the project by repeatedly asking for timeline for completion of the project. The respondent did not provide any timeline for completion of the project to the Appellant.
9- The Appellant was within her rights not to make any further payments to the respondent on receipt of the demand just two months before the date of handing over of the possession as it was apparent that project could not have been completed within the stipulated time. Even on the date of filing of complaint on 04.12.2020, the project was shown to be an ongoing project as per website of the respondent.
SA/349/2025 "Page 5 of 23 h. State Commission failed to consider that no evidence has been led by the Respondent to show that Appellant was a real estate investor. The Appellant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. i. The respondent failed to place on record any notification or order prior to 24.10.2017 that might have caused delay in the completion of the project. J- As pleaded by the respondent that there was huge outstanding amount to be paid by the allottees which had resulted in delay in handing over of possession to the allottees and in order to meet the gap for the cost of completion of the project, the respondent approached the SWAMIH Investment Fund which had sanctioned the amount of completion of the project. The said plea is not true as on 02.9.2020 the total outstanding amount from the allottees as claimed by the respondent was only Rs.3.67 crores, whereas the letter dated 23.07.2020 received from SWAMIH Investment Fund would show that the Investment Committee had accorded a final approval to invest upto Rs.110 crores and an additional amount of Rs.56.30 crores for completion of project.
k. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the following judgments :
a. Subodh Pawar Vs. Ireo Grace Realtech 2018 SCC Online NCDRC.
b. NBCC (India) Ld. Vs. Shri Ram Trivedi (2021) 5 SCC 273.
c. Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Govind Raghavan ( 2019) 5SCC 725.
d. Raghbir Singh Vs. BPTP Ltd. 2021 SCC Online 352 SA/349/2025 "Page 6 of 23 I e. Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2016 Online NCDRC 930.
6. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the SA, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
7. Counsel for the Appellant apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5 argued that District Commission has given a finding that respondent was at fault as it could not complete the construction / project even after 7 years from the date of the execution of Flat Buyer's agreement as the respondent had clearly stated in its reply that it was in the process of completing the construction of the project. Further, respondent had refunded the amount of Rs.50,36,473/- to the Appellant in pursuance of the order of the District Forum and, therefore, said finding of District Forum has now attained finality.
8. Counsel for the Respondent argued that Second Appeal has been filed with a delay of 40 days, without giving any justifiable reason for condonation. Further, the Appellant in Paras 6 to 8 of the Application for Condonation of Delay admits that her that she and her counsel were aware of the impugned order but preferred to pursue a revision petition on the erroneous premise that a second appeal was not maintainable. It is well settled that ignorance of law does not amount to sufficient cause for condoning delay. The Appellant had ample opportunity within the limitation period to ascertain the correct legal remedy. Learned counsel also argued that the present appeal does not SA/349/2025 "Page 7 of 23 >' involve substantial question of law. None of the substantial questions of law can be considered to be purely substantial questions of law. The same can be categorized as mixed questions of law and fact. Further, in terms of Section 51 ( 2) of the consumer Protection Act, 2019, the National Commission does not have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the facts and evidence. Learned counsel further argued that appellant has repeatedly defaulted in payment of the instalments raised as per schedule of payment and had infact paid only Rs.50,36,573/- of the total payable amount of Rs.1,67,86,200/-. Learned counsel relied on clause 8.1 of the Flat Buyer's agreement according to which it was specifically agreed and accepted that in case of any default / delay in payment as per schedule of payments, the date of handing over the possession shall be extended accordingly. The Appellant having failed to pay the instalments, cannot assert any claim of interest / compensation for delay. Even, emails were sent to the Appellant for making the payments, but Appellant did not make any payment after 27.11.2015. Even the Appellant had also been informed the status of the construction of the site. Further, as per clause 6 of the Agreement, in case of delay of 60 days in making payment as per Schedule of Payments, respondent was entitled to charge to charge interest on the outstanding amount or forfeit the non-refundable amount, however, respondent chose not to exercise its rightful entitlement for termination under the Agreement. It is also argued that Fora below have correctly observed that Appellant is simply an investor instead of being the end user.
SA/349/2025 "Page 8 of 23
9. This case was heard on 03.11.2025 from both sides when the arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved. The said order is reproduced below:
1. Delay of 40 days in filing the Second Appeal is condoned after considering the reasons stated in the condonation of delay application.
2. Heard counsel for both sides.
3. Challenge is to the order dated 25.03.2025 of the State Commission vide which appeal ( First Appeal) filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and order of the District Commission dated 21.07.2022 was upheld. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint with direction to the Opposite Party to refund the principal amount of Rs.50,36,473/- paid by the complainant but without any interest, holding that both the complainant and Builder were at fault. The State Commission also observed in its order that complainant was found to be at fault on 3 counts and Opposite Party is also at fault. Extract of relevant para of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:
8. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant was found to be at fault on three counts (i) the complainant asked the respondent with regard to the termination of flat in question just after 13 months (ii) the complainant did not pay the instalment within the stipulated time and (Hi) the complainant had paid only an amount ofRs.50,36,573/- instead of Rs. 1,67,200/-.
The Opposite Party is also at fault. The Opposite Party did not deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant within stipulated period. In totality, both the parties at fault
4. The Flat / unit was allotted vide letter dated 17.10.2024 ( page 67) followed by signing of BBA dated 27.10.2024 f page 73). The said allotment letter and BBA contains payment plan / schedule of payment as per which the first three instalments were time linked, 10% to be paid at the time of booking, 2nd instalment - on or before 90^ day of allotment and third instalment - on or before 18(fh day of SA/349/2025 "Page 9 of 23 allotment, 4th instalment of 40% to be paid on completion of super structure and 5th /last on offer of possession.
5. The main issue for consideration in the present case is whether the complainant is entitled to any interest on the refund of his principal, if yes, rate of such interest. The main reason for both the foras not allowing interest is that complainant defaulted in making the 4th payment which was to be paid on completion of super structure, for which a demand letter was issued on 30.08.2017 (page 106). As per the agreement, the due date of completion was. 36 months i.e. 30.10.2017 with additional grace period of 90 days to enable the builder to obtain the OC ( clause 8.1) ( page 81). Even with this grace period, the committed date of possession would come to 25.01.2018. It is the case of the complainant that he did not pay the 4th instalment / demand dated 30.08.2017 because on getting this demand, when he visited the project site, he found that project is nowhere in completion. Hence, apprehending that Builder will not be in a position to give him the possession of the flat, as per the committed date, even with grace period i.e. 25.01.2018, he did not make payment as per this demand and made certain communications with the Builder in this regard. Our attention has been drawn to email communications in this regard which are dated 31.10.2017 ( page 100), 06.02.2018 (page 101), 11.04.2018 (page 102), 18.06.2018 ( page 103, 16.08.2018 ( page 105). The respondent on the other hand as also drawn our attention to their email response dated 07.06.2018 (page 104). It is not in dispute that OC was obtained by the respondent on 24.08.2021 ( page 23 of the evidence of the respondent before the District Commission.
6. Both the Fora below have recorded that complainant / appellant herein terminated the BBA within 13 months after execution of the BBA i.e. 27.11.2015 (para 6 of the District Commission's order and para 8 of State Commission's order).
7. Counsel representing the respondent fairly submitted that this is an incorrect recording by both the District commission and State Commission as complainant for the first time terminated the agreement in question and sought refund through his legal notice dated 15.01.2020 (page 120-123).
8. Although, District Commission recorded at certain places that amount paid was Rs. 54,16,522/-, it is admitted by the complainant / appellant herein that total amount paid was Rs.50,36,473/- only, which has already been refunded in compliance of the order of the District Commission. SA/349/2025 "Page 10 of 23
9. The petitioner relied on following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court / National Commission:
a. Kavita Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd and Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.- 2016 Online NCDRC 930 b. NBCC ( India) Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Trivedi 2021 5 SCC 273 c. Raghbir Singh Vs. BPTP Ltd. 2021 SCC Online 352 d. Pionner Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govind Ragavan 2019 5 SCC 725 e. Subodh Pawar Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 1248.
10. Respondent on the other hand relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court / National Commission a. Chandrabhan ( Deceased) through LRs and Ors. Vs. Saraswati and Ors. - (2022) 20 SCC 199, b. Randhir Singh Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd. - FA No. 06 of 2014..
11. Appellant has also drawn our attention to the status of the project on the website of the respondent builder, print out of which has also been enclosed with the complaint ( page
119). Further, appellant submits that one of the reason for delay advanced by the respondent builder was non payment by allottees and in support of that, they have placed on record list of those due payments which is given at page 194, according to which only an amount of Rs. 3.67 crore was due from some of the allottees. At the same time, there were sanctioned fund of Rs.110 Crores and additionally an amount of Rs.56.30 crore under SWAMIH Investment Plan ( page 195).
12. Counsel for the respondent also contended that none of the reasons listed by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal constitute substantial question of law as elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan (deceased) through LRs Vs. Saraswati and Ors,. He further contended that scope in Second Appeal is limited and in this case, both the Foras have given concurrent findings on complainant being in default and not entitled to interest.
SA/349/2025 'Page 11 of 23
10. The order dated 03.11.2025 briefly captures the facts of the case and issues involved. The main issue for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any interest on the refund of his principal, if yes, rate of such interest. Para 8 of the State Commission's order, relevant portion of which has already been extracted above in the order dated 03.11.2025 states that complainant was found to be at fault on 3 counts. It was fairly admitted by the OPs ( respondent herein) during the hearing that both the Fora below have incorrectly recorded that the complainant asked the respondent for termination of the flat in question, which is after 13 months. It was admitted that the complainant for the first time terminated the agreement in question and sought refund through his legal notice dated 15.01.2020. Further, as regards point
(iii) in para 8 of the State Commission's order which records that complainant has only paid an amount of Rs.50,36,573/- instead of Rs.1,67,86,200/-, it was admitted that total amount of Rs.1,67,86,200/- was not due. As per the payment plan enclosed with the allotment letter dated 17.10.2014, the complainant paid first 3 instalments of Rs. 16,33,620/- each which were (i) at the time of booking, ( ii) within 90 days from the date of booking and ( iii) within 180 days from the date of booking. The payment which the complainant did not make was on completion of Super Structure viz Rs.65,34,480/- for which demand was raised on 30.08.2017, the balance amount of Rs.53,50,860/- was not due / payable as the 5th and last instalment was to be paid only on offer of possession. This payment schedule has been duly reflected in the agreement as well which indicates the payment schedule SA/349/2025 "Page 12 of 23 c in terms of percentage, where the first three instalments were 10% each and 4th instalment on completion of super structure was 40% and balance 30% plus other charges was to be paid only on offer of possession. Hence, the observation of the State Commission under para 8 i.e. (iii) gives a wrongful information as if the total amount payable was Rs. 1,67,86,200/- against which an amount of Rs.50,36,573/- was paid. Hence, to this extent, we prima facie find that State Commission's order suffer from material irregularity. These 3 reasons obviously weighed in the mind of the State Commission while deciding that complainant is not entitled to any interest. Non payment of the 4th instalment demanded vide letter dated 30.08.2017 is not in dispute but it is the case of the complainant that on receipt of this demand letter, when he visited the project site, he found that project is nowhere near completion. Hence, apprehending that builder will not be able to in a position to give him the possession of the flat as per the committed date, even with a grace period i.e. by 25.01.2018, he did not make payment as per this demand and made certain communications with the Builder in this regard which has been recorded in order dated 03.11.2025. These communications are reproduced on subsequent pages.
SA/349/2025 "Page 13 of 21 E-mail dated 31.10.2017 Gmail Mona Arora <[email protected] ' BuHd(r»91, unh IB Mona Ar«e <[email protected]> TVe, 31 Octi 2017 4«1 PI
* • TtirTTiefMf <[email protected]> Cc Jften 9 Gmail <IItermloba!daslgnera@gma!lxom> .'. Boo: Mani Mishra <manumlshre@artholawxom> OearSK _ . ....................... .
. .ItlatoWng to your Idndnafce that vide the fiat buyer-a agreement dated 27.1(L2(>I4 entered between us, the '------ apartm®! b® handed over to me by 27.10.2017, lx. within thirty ata months. The aald agreement however gave yos e further grace period of ninety days. However, tffl date, as per my understanding end personal knowledge "after myvislt tn the site, the project la nowhere near completion. ' Kindly apprise me of the current status end oblige. It la really unfortunate that despite repeated requests, reminders q id correspondences from my end, you hove neither apprised us of the status of the projaet/hhren a tfmsflno or * even responded to our queries..
Looldna for a prompt reply from your end.
Bast Regards [Quoted ttxt hWdan] E mail dated 06.02.2018 Mona Awn omonaa wa13039oinallao<n:
. Grnail
BundlrtSiritis ______ __
■me, 6 Feb, 2018 2®S Pi
• Mona AfAs <nw«*rtMWl80a©<FT*fl-cam>
• 'Tb:.TMlM<thdezrf@s3group^ndtaxGm> j* ' "'" ***--'***a^^
. Cc Jlton 0 Cmafl <pten^oteldeslsn«n@8>n*I1Mm> Dear Sr, i This Is In furtherance to my e-mail dated 31.102017. Vide the said email, I had asked you I to provide.me wfth a status of the your project *1119 Leaf.0 However, no reply has been . received by me till date.
(~ .
•.c is to bring to your land notice that vide the flat buyer's agreement dated 27.102014.
ne^JBC8iv8d ,h9 possession of the said flat nor have I I i^^enT^^StttS^ XU8^rem,ndare and ""^Pondences or even or responded to even responded to my my queries queries. status 01 d19 Profsct/gtven e timeline ■ SA/349/2025 "Page 14 of 21 Email dated 11.04.2018 Mpna Ann <monwttra13CS@gina9xein . Reply to payment reminder Mona Arora <monaan>ra1303®grnall.com> Wad. 11 Apr, 2Q1B 1ia0 Al TO: Hie tool <[email protected]> Bee Jlten © BnaD <|Han4lobaldestanere@gmalLcam> DearSWMrtm, ' 'iTtfaX-? <Mna" <lat"107'04-2B18 *t1'reln yox hed astanlma to pay the duo amount ftr my Unit No. • RERA complaint. • ......
i ■ I have been reguleily vwfiing to you to update me about the status of the project but have received no reply ini xtale; the emails dated 08.092017 & 31.10,2017 beartastimony to the sama. BestKrgards'.........
MoDaAxtua
From: THE LEAF <thdMf®»sn>u>>-tndla<»m»
□«» Sat 7 Apr. FO1B «t ISO PM
Subject' Payrrmnt Reminder'
To: <monaaror«1303@sm»ILcom> . '
• .* ? - ■
DetiMoikfAxoca,- •, •> 4 J• . •
i
i
1
SA/349/2025 "Page 15 of 21
Email dated 24th Nov. 118.06.2018
I:
J Mona Arora •[email protected]>
Payment Reminder___________ ; Sun, 24-Noy,3d7PM
Mona Arora <[email protected]>
Tm Jtten ® Gmail <[[email protected]» Rom: Mona Arora <monaarorSl303@flmalLcom> ■) Date: Mon, 18 Jun, 2018 at 1041 PM .
Suyect Re: Payment Reminder.
TO: THE LEAF <the!eaf®ssaroup-«idlacom> DaarSIr/Ma'am, 1 am In receipt of your furan dated 07.06.2018 wherein you have sought the payment of the due c. amount for my Unft No. 1 B In BuHcflhg-1.
1 At the outeat I would like to bring to your kind notice the fact that when I visited fhe site of the project I fbundithsl 8ie projectJs nowhere near completion. Theperiod tor completion;; as • . • ;stipulatBd.tn the Agreement dated 27.10.?qi4has' already elapsed.- ' ' . "
It Is pertinent to bring to your kind notice the fed that vfde'e-mall dated 2$jlfi2p17;Thad. eslteid . you to provide me.wtlh a BmeHrii-frr 8ie construction and possession status of the said prefect ■ - ■ ~ ■ vteo your'reply dated 26.08J017, I had only received an e-mall staling that the precess far.-
setting a'nsw timeline was In place to make the proJed RERA compliant I have till date made a total payment of Rs. .54,18,522/- In the said prefect 1 have been regularly ,J TtantoumiFtasirdsJ *_• • ''Mona Arora. J '.
. ■ <• ■ SA/349/2025 "Page 16 of 21 Email dated 16.08.2018 Mona Arora <monaaror«[email protected]> . |M| Gmail Due Payment Reminder -------------------------------------------- Thu, is Aug, zota tow am Menu Mbhro kUrmu-mlahreSbl*™^ BccJltBrteGmafl^ten^lobeldeslcnereeSn®1*^ . ... .DaarSWMdam,.' . ' J •j r :Rsquas1 youto:provldq/ewith« ^aymeci ^SaGnSTSs^dyps^L
Request you to share a definite and constructhre ttmefine.
Thanks
tQuoM tart MddtnJ
E mail dated 07.06.2018
^/fe*****"'880™*® ; '■ -h-
.h 4- '
A ,
r 7rb: du® Payn"nt your unit no. IB torthe BuWtna/TbwBr- BUILDINO-1 In tho project 'THE LEAF*.
, TM, nuroble ramWer ta to let you know thet oinmandlna Instetaent/e of R3.7746B2S/-. Is required to be peld. . Kindly ^t^^urananictlon w^ of yoiKesteemedproJocttelnfuti swtnj; and with your cooperation, we . expect tn owtate It vary soon. It la our conetent endasnrauf to p^li^ymr^ir dream ta. l;Si^^^---"aW°b^k-t° *° 1"tMt ccnatrucUcn statue te betnflXdonad to spprtse you of the rBqU<ntt,d t» Wndly dear the due. Immediately and further to avoid accrual • payment shall ba done by Demand Draft/ cheque tn favour of S3 Group Pvt Ltd.- Leaf Operations Account Y°U can also do the Wnart Via RTGSMEFT tn the fonowtna account menttanod/Nerrate Apptlcent num and unit ' number at wtouino or renuttanco.
'v\. please fee! free to contact me to asslstyou for any query In the matter ' *N8ma'ctC^pany.:S?^6rai^p^|,^^^Qpar^r9AccQW^< .. € Current A/dNp.iOTliBBWB '' ''' ■ Hama of Bank: Kotak Mahindra Bank s Branch: Mumbai, Nariman Point Branch : IFSC: KKBKOOOOS5B ' httpV/VfwW'Bsereup-lndla.ooff^ProtectB/RsabEstetB/OngdnQ-PrOaa/Raddential/Sraup'Houstnsnhe'Leaf-
Sector-85-Gurgaon
.?■
■ Thanks & Ri^jardh, /
Suntan 1
^_a58692B434
SA/349/2025 "Page 17 of 21
11. It is not in dispute that OC in question was obtained by the OPs on 24.08.2021 only. The committed date of possession as per the agreement, even with grace period as stated above was 25.01.2018. Hence, the complainant contends that his apprehension were well founded and came true and he was justified in not making the 4 th instalment demand raised vide demand letter dated 30.08.2017. We find merit in such contention of the complainant. As regards, contention of the OP that case involves no substantial of law, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case pf Chandrabhan ( deceased ) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Saraswati and Others (2022) 20 SCC
199. We have carefully gone through the contentions of the OP in this regard in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan ( deceased ) (supra) case. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the Court below, but it is not an absolute rule and subject to certain exceptions. In this regard, extract of relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced below:
32.3. The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (Hi) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, SA/349/2025 "Page 18 of 21 taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding"
12. The OP has also relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Randhir Singh Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers ( P) Ltd. - FA No. 06 of 2014. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced below:
15. However, the fact that complainants also defaulted in making the payment of three instalments, cannot be over-looked. The complainants were, thus, also at fault.
In the face of circumstances aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, that the complainants are entitled to refund of amount of Rs. 21.60 lacs deposited by them with the Opposite Party, but since they also defaulted in adhering to the instalments, Payment plan, we do not deem it appropriate, either to allow them, any interest, on the said amount or compensation. "
13. The Appellant, on the other hand relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NBCC ( India) Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Trivedi (2021) 5 SCC 273, relevant para of which is reproduced below:
13. As regards, the date on which interest would become payable, having regard to the one-year period, which is stipulated, beyond two and a half years from the original period under clause 20, interest would become payable from 01.01.2016. Secondly, insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the interest should be fixed at 7% instead and in place of 10% which has been awarded by NCDRC.
Interest @10% is excessive, in light of prevailing market conditions.
14. The submission of the appellant that there was delay on the part of the respondent in paying the fifth instalment does not merit acceptance. The fifth instalment was payable in the month of September 2014, while the final instalment, as the learned counsel submitted, was payable at the time of the issuance of the letter of possession. This was to take place in December 2014. In the present case, it is evident that the appellant itself was SA/349/2025 "Page 19 of 21 not in a position to hand over possession of the dwelling unit by the end of December 2014. Hence, the requirement of paying the penultimate instalments in September 2014 must be looked at from that perspective. }) xxxx
17. We, accordingly, uphold the principal findings of NCDRC in regard to the entitlement of the respondent to receive compensation for the delayed handing over possession. The force majeure defence raised by the appellant was justifiably rejected by NCDRC. The respondent was entitled to be compensated for the delay of the appellant for which an appropriate direction for interest is necessary
14. In view of the foregoing and keeping in view the entirety of the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that order of both the District Commission and State Commission suffer from material irregularity and cannot be sustained as it is . The basic premise of the State Commission in not awarding interest was three fold reasons as stated in para 8 of the State Commission's order, which we have already discussed in the preceding paras and come to a finding that all the 3 reasons were not factually correct. We are also of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, complainant was justified in not making payment of the 4th instalment demanded vide demand letter dated 30.08.2017 and his apprehension that the builder will not be in a position to complete the project and hand over the possession by the committed date of possession even with a grace period i.e. 25.01.2018 ultimately came true which is evident from the fact that OC was obtained only on 24.08.2021 i.e.after a delay of 3 years and 7 months. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant in the present case is SA/349/2025 "Page 20 of 21 entitled to interest. Hence, in partial modification of the order dated 25.03.2025 of the State Commission, we order that OP ( respondent herein) shall refund principal amount to the amount of Rs.50,36,473/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each deposit till the date of actual payment. In addition, the complainant is entitled to additional cost of Rs.25,000/-
15. Entire payment as per this order shall be made within a maximum of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount payable at the end of 45 days shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the expiry of 45 days till the date of actual payment.
16. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
Am/ (DR.S6MR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
SA/349/2025 "Page 21 of 21