State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Paramjeet Singh S/O. Shri Mastan Singh vs Rohtas Goel Founder Cum Chief Managing ... on 31 December, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Consumer Complaint No. : 33 of 2025
Date of Institution : 15.04.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
Paramjeet Singh s/o Sh. Mastan Singh, Aged 52 years, R/o House
No.39A/96, Kishan Singh Colony, Station Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) -
834001
...Complainant
Versus
1] Mr. Rohtas Goel, Founder-cum-Chief Managing Director, M/s Omaxe
Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered & Corporate
Office: 10 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019
2] M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., Zonal Office:
India Trade Tower, First Floor, Baddi-Kurali Road, New Chandigarh,
Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab - 140901
....Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY:
Col. Shamsher Singh (Retd.), Advocate alongwith Ms. Radha singh, Advocate for the complainant Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking possession of the unit purchased by him alongwith compensation for the period of delay etc., as he is aggrieved of delay and latches; deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the 2 part of the opposite parties. It has been alleged by the complainant that despite the fact that he has made payment of ₹78,70,283/-, as per detail given in Para 9 of the complaint, against total sale consideration of ₹78,63,704/- (as per Annexure-A & Annexure-B (Part-II), appended to allotment letter dated 16.02.2015 as referred to in the chart below, yet, the opposite parties have not offered legal and valid possession of the unit for want of development and construction at the project site and the requisite occupation and completion certificate, which as per Clause 40(a) of the allotment letter, was to be delivered within a period of 42 months plus 6 months grace period i.e. 48 months from the date of allotment letter i.e. by 16.02.2019. Details with regard to the project; unit purchased by the complainant; payments made by them etc. are given below:-
Project "The Lake", Omaxe New Chandigarh, SAS
Nagar (Punjab)
Date of booking: 12.08.2014
Date of allotment: 16.02.2015
Apartment No. TLC/CASPEAN-B/TWELTH/1201
Area of the unit 1975 sq. ft.
Total cost ₹78,63,704/-
(as per Annexure-B Part III of Payment plan of
the unit)
Amount paid ₹78,70,283/- (up-to Nov. 2024) i.e.
Rs.39,33,772/- by the complainant
Rs.39,36,511/- by taking loan home loan
from ICICI Bank
Total amount paid till date ₹78,70,283/-
Due date of possession 16.02.2019
[within 48 months as per clause 40(a) of
allotment letter]
Possession offered or not Not yet
(as alleged in the complaint)
Delay in years more than 6 years
Allottee Original allottee
2] Alleging aforesaid acts as deficiency in rendering service and
unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to 3 deliver possession of the apartment, complete in all aspects with basic amenities and all mandatory legal certifications; pay compensation by way of interest @24% p.a. on the deposited amount w.e.f. 15.08.2018 onwards (42 months from allotment letter); pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment besides ₹1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
Reply of the opposite parties:-
3] The opposite parties, in their written reply, while admitting factual matrix of the case with regard to sale and allotment of the unit in question to the complainant in the project in question; payments made by him as mentioned in the complaint etc. took various objections/pleas as under:-
i. that opposite party No.1 - Mr. Rohtas Goel has nothing to do with opposite party No.2 - Company as he is not Managing Director the Company; further he is in no manner responsible for day-to-day functioning of opposite party No.2 - Company and as such, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties; that the name of opposite party No.1 be deleted from the array of the parties.
ii. that the Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as neither the subject project nor the opposite parties fall within the territorial jurisdiction. The project is situated in Mohali, Punjab thereby ousting the jurisdiction of this Commission.
iii. that as per clause 40(a) of the allotment letter dated 16.02.2015, it was also clearly brought to the notice of the complainant that the opposite parties shall try to complete the development/construction of the unit/project within a period of 42 months from the date of signing of the allotment letter or approval of the building plans, whichever is later and within such further extended grace period of 6 (six) months and the period of 48 months of delivery of possession as mentioned in the agreement is excluding of Saturdays, Sundays and Govt.
Holidays;
4iv. that the date of possession as per the allotment letter was 16.02.2019 counting 48 months from the date of the allotment letter and not from the date (42 months) as claimed by the complainant.
v. that as per clause 40(a) of the allotment letter, it was clearly agreed to between the parties that the period of delivery of possession was subject to force majeure circumstances; vi. that delay in offering possession of the unit took place because of the force majeure circumstances having been faced by the opposite parties due to COVID-19, as a result whereof the Government of India issued various advisories, giving relief to the builders by extending the dates for completion of the projects;
vii. that not only series of demand letters but reminders and warning notices were also issued to the complainant to pay the outstanding dues but he failed to make timely payments; viii. that the construction work is actively progressing and the possession of the unit will be delivered in due course after obtaining necessary approvals and certifications from concerned authorities;
ix. that the complainant is also guilty of suppression and concealment of material facts as he was duly issued an offer of possession letter dated 08.10.2024 accompanied by Annexure A i.e. statement of account dated 08.10.2024 clearly detailing the outstanding dues payable prior to possession;
x. that the complainant himself acknowledged receipt of offer of possession letter as evidence by his own email dated 27.10.2024;
xi. that the opposite parties received Occupation Certificate i.e. Permission for the occupation/use of CASPEAN A & CASPEAN B from GMADA on 26.11.2024, Annexure R-9;
xii. that the net outstanding amount payable by the complainant stood at Rs.14,33,300.72 as on 08.10.2024;
54] While denying the rest of the averments made in the complaint, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Rejoinder:-
5] In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of the opposite parties.
6] The parties led evidence in support of their case and also filed written arguments.
7] We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of this case including the written arguments very carefully.
8] First of all we deal with the preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties as under:-
Complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties:-
9] As regards the first objection raised by the opposite parties with regard to mis-joinder of parties, it may be stated here that the opposite parties have sought deletion of the name of opposite party No.1 - Rohtas Goel from the array of the parties, pleading that he is not the Managing Director of the Company and he is in no manner responsible for day-to-day functioning of opposite party No.2 - Company. On other hand, while contesting this objection, the complainant has stated that Sh. Rohtas Goel happens to be the founder and first generation entrepreneur who is the Chairman cum Managing Director (CMD) of Omaxe Group and as such, he is a necessary party for complete adjudication of the case. The complainant further stated that the Omaxe Group is registered under the name of Rohtas Goel, the Founding Chairman, according to Omaxe website and the seal of the company is also associated with his name. The complainant has annexed copy of CMD Message (Rohtas Goel) to the shareholders in the Annual Report Omaxe Limited for the F.Y. 2013-14 as Annexure C-18 with his rejoinder. He has also annexed copy of News Item of TOI dated 21.09.2018 about Omaxe Chairman Rohtas Goel dragged to NCLT by younger brother, as downloaded from google as Annexure C-19 and news item of The Economic Times dated 18.01.2021 about NCLT admitting 6 petition against real estate developers Omaxe showing Mr. Rohtas Goel as Chairman of Omaxe Group as downloaded from google as Annexure C-20.
The complainant has further placed on record "KNOW ABOUT OMAXE"
downloaded from Omaxe Website as Annexure C-21 showing Mr. Rohtas Goel as Chairman of Omaxe Group. The complainant has further stated that the inclusion of the name of Mr. Rohtas Goel as opposite party No.1 is very necessary and essential in view of his role as Chairman Omaxe Group, position of authority and responsibility with the company. He has further stated that Mr. Rohtas Goel's role in the company's overall operations and decision-making clearly brings out that as a Founder, Chairman and CMD, he has direct involvement in all the transactions of the company. 10] Having considered the rival contentions and material on record, the Commission is of the view that the prayer for deletion of Opposite Party No.1, Sh. Rohtas Goel, is devoid of merit. Though consumer proceedings are summary in nature, the principles under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply for determining necessary and proper parties and as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. MCGM (1992) 2 SCC 524, a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective order can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete and final adjudication. Further, in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417, it has been reiterated that the complainant, being dominus litis, is ordinarily entitled to choose the parties against whom he seeks relief, so long as such choice is not vexatious. The complainant has placed on record contemporaneous corporate disclosures, website extracts and widely reported news items (Annexures C-18 to C-21) which consistently describe Sh. Rohtas Goel as Founder, Chairman and CMD of the Omaxe Group and associate the Group's seal, branding and public communications with his name. Real estate projects are conceived, branded and marketed under the Group umbrella and group leadership typically exercises decisive influence over financing, policy decisions, customer redressal and inter-company deployment of resources; confining impleadment to the project company alone would risk ineffective enforcement and multiplicity of proceedings at 7 the execution stage. The stand of opposite parties cannot negate position of Mr. Rohtas Goel as the guiding mind of the Omaxe Group. There is nothing on record to suggest that impleadment of opposite party No.1 is vexatious or mala fide; rather, the complainant has provided specific reasons supported by documents. Accordingly, this Commission holds that Sh. Rohtas Goel is a necessary or at the very least a proper party to the proceedings. As such, the objection raised in this regard stands rejected.
Territorial jurisdiction:-
11] So far as the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it may be stated here that Section 47 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides as under:-
".....47. (4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain...."
Bare perusal of the above said provisions of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 47 (4) of the CPA 2019 abundantly make it very clear that a complaint may be filed at a place, where the opposite party(s) actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Sub-section (c) and (d) of Section 47 (4) of the said Act, further clarifies that the State Commission within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action, wholly or in part arises or the complainant resides or personally works for gain, shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain 8 and decide the consumer complaint. It is significant to mention here that per documents i.e. the payment receipts, Annexure C-1 & C-2; acknowledgment letter dated 08.12.2014 qua booking, Annexure C-4; allotment letter dated 16.02.2015, Annexure C-5, it is very much established that the same were issued to the complainant by the opposite parties from their Regional Office situated at SCO No.139-140, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Thus, it is very much established that the opposite parties were actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on business and personally works for gain at Chandigarh from the aforesaid office address. Therefore, in view of Section 47 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. As such, objection of territorial jurisdiction taken by the opposite parties stands rejected.
Observations/findings of this Commission.
12] Now coming to the merits of the case, it is coming out from the record specifically Reminder-2 dated 21.04.2025 (at Page 143 of the file) that the complainant has, in all, paid an amount of ₹68,71,406.18 apart from paying ST/GST of ₹3,55,575.42 and an amount of ₹14,33,300.72 was due as on 08.10.2024, towards his unit. However, during the course of arguments, Counsel for the opposite parties placed on record statement of account of the complainant qua the unit in question as on 11.11.2025 under Customer ID: TLC/199 which shows the cleared amount as ₹74,89,529.76; ST/GST of ₹3,80,752.84 (against the net amount payable of ₹82,44,379.50 including PLC, additional cost & EDC) and the current dues are shown as ₹7,89,999.72 besides interest due as ₹1,61,150.85. The possession of the said unit was to be delivered within total period of 48 months from the date of execution of allotment letter i.e. on or before 16.02.2019 (48 months i.e. 42 months plus 6 months grace period from the date of execution of allotment letter, as per clause 40 (a) of allotment letter being 16.02.2015). The complainant has alleged that the possession of the unit in question has not been offered to him by the opposite parties till date. However, the record says otherwise. The opposite parties have taken a specific objection that the complainant is guilty of suppression and 9 concealment of material facts as he was duly issued an offer of possession letter dated 08.10.2024 accompanied by Annexure A i.e. statement of account dated 08.10.2024 clearly detailing the outstanding dues payable prior to possession. It has been pleaded that the complainant himself acknowledged receipt of offer of possession letter as evidence by his own email dated 27.10.2024. Moreover, the opposite parties have also taken shelter under the force majeure circumstances stating that COVID-19 lockdown was announced in 2020 (in fact on 15.03.2020) in the country; that the Government of India issued various advisories, giving relief to the builders by extending the dates for completion of the ongoing projects and that the competent authorities have extended the period for completion of the project in question.
13] Under above circumstances, the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the opposite parties are entitled to immunity for delay in offering possession of the unit in question, on the grounds mentioned above. The opposite parties have stated that in response to challenges posed by the pandemic, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs issued an Advisory on 13.05.2020, recommending the extension of the registration of real estate project under force majeure provisions as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act), 2016. It has further been stated that similarly Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, through its circular dated 18.05.2020 directed the Force majeure period to be treated as a moratorium period for the calculation of interest including under section 18 of the Act, covering interest on delay compensation. It has further been stated that the situation was aggravated by the second wave of Covid- 19 in 2021. This Commission is also not oblivious of the fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Housing Section, vide office memorandum dated 13.05.2020 had extended the registration and completion date or revised completion date or extended completion dates by 6 months due to outbreak of COVID-19, which was extendable up-to further 3 months i.e. total 9 months. However, in the instant case, since the date of possession being 16.02.2019 was prior to the Covid period, therefore, in our considered opinion, the opposite parties are 10 not entitled to get immunity of these 9 months. As stated above, the possession was offered on 08.10.2024 vide offer of possession letter, Annexure R-8, which fact the complainant did not disclose in his complaint. Further, the complainant has himself admitted the receipt of offer of possession letter in his email dated 27.10.2024, Annexure C-13 (at page 84 of the file). The relevant portion of the said email reads thus:-
"I am writing in receipt of your email with "Offer for Possession" for the property 1201 - Caspean B at The Lake New Chandigarh, Account TLC/199....."
This material fact, however, was deliberately withheld by the complainant in the complaint, thereby giving an incomplete and misleading account of the actual sequence of events. The complainant's unequivocally acknowledgment of the receipt of the said Offer of Possession Letter in his email dated 27.10.2024 demonstrates that the complainant was fully aware of the possession offer.
14] Not only above, the Occupation Certificate was received by the opposite parties on 26.11.2024, Annexure R-9, immediately after offer of possession letter dated 27.10.2024. Vide this certificate, permission was granted for the occupation/use of the buildings i.e. CASPEAN A & CASPEAN B, which clearly establish that the building - CAPEAN B wherein the flat of the complainant has been allotted was fully complete and ready for occupancy and use. It is the complainant himself who did not come forward to receive the possession or even after occupancy certificate. Thus, the plea of the complainant that he has not been offered the possession till date is bereft of any substance.
15] Now, we will like to decide as to what amount of compensation should be granted to the complainant, for the period of delay in delivery of possession, starting from 16.02.2019. By not offering the possession of said unit to the complainant for such long time, the complainant has definitely gone through tremendous mental agony, harassment besides financial loss. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable 11 compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No.11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon'ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of actual physical possession. Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019, by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora's case (supra). Furthermore, in Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon'ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. Recently, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Atul Kulshrestha and another Versus Emaar India Limited, FA No.1126 of 2023 decided on 29.04.2025, has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered.
16] However, in the present case, it stands established on the record that the complainant himself failed to come forward to take possession of the unit by depositing the balance amount due, despite the fact proved through documentary evidence that the possession had already been duly offered to him by the opposite parties on 08.10.2024. This crucial fact was not disclosed by the complainant in his complaint, thereby creating an incorrect impression that the opposite parties were responsible for the delay. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot claim entitlement to delay interest up to the date of actual delivery of physical possession, as the delay subsequent to the offer of possession is solely attributable to his own inaction. Rather, the complainant is, at best, entitled to interest only up to 12 the date of issuance of the Occupation Certificate i.e. 26.11.2024, calculated from the due date for delivery of possession i.e. 16.02.2019. Therefore, if interest at the rate of 9% per annum is awarded to the complainant on the entire amount deposited by him in respect of the unit in question, for the period commencing from 16.02.2019 up to the date of the Occupation Certificate i.e. 26.11.2024, the ends of justice would be fully met. This approach ensures fair compensation for the period of actual delay attributable to the opposite parties without unjustly rewarding the complainant for the delay caused by his own failure to respond to the offer of possession.
17] For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
(i) to deliver actual physical possession of the unit in question, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of the remaining amount due from him, if any, without charging any delayed penalty or interest thereon.
(ii) to pay to the complainant, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. starting from 16.02.2019 till 26.11.2024, on the amount deposited by him, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 30 days till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainant.
(iii)to pay to the complainant, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and also for deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said 13 amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
18] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
19] File be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced.
31.12.2025 [PADMA PANDEY] PRESIDING MEMBER [RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER Ad 14