State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Riya Bansal vs Akash Homes Premium Plus on 24 March, 2026
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Complaint No. : 51/2025
Date of Institution : 28.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.03.2026
RIYA BANSAL, aged 29 years, wife of Sh. Dishant Jindal, Resident of House
No.1471, First Floor, Deep Complex, Hallomajra, Chandigarh UT - 160002
...Complainant
Versus
1] AKASH HOMES PREMIUM PLUS, through its Partner/Proprietor/
Promoter/Developer, Mr. Raman Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Resident
of House No.70, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana - 134117
2] AKASH HOMES PREMIUM PLUS, through its Partner/Proprietor/
Promoter/Developer, Mr. Puneet Garg, Resident of House No.70,
Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana - 134117
3] The Sub Registrar/Joint Sub Registrar, SRO Zirakpur, Sub-Tehsil
Zirakpur, office of Municipal Corporation, Opposite Police Station,
Zirakpur, Punjab - 140603
...Opposite parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint No. : 52/2025
Date of Institution : 28.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.03.2026
NANDITA BANSAL, aged 29 years, wife of Sh. Vishal Jindal, Resident of
House No.1471, 2nd Floor, Deep Complex, Hallomajra, Chandigarh UT -
160002
...Complainant
Versus
1] AKASH HOMES PREMIUM PLUS, through its Partner/Proprietor/
Promoter/Developer, Mr. Raman Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Resident
of House No.70, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana - 134117
2
2] AKASH HOMES PREMIUM PLUS, through its Partner/Proprietor/
Promoter/Developer, Mr. Puneet Garg, Resident of House No.70,
Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana - 134117
3] The Sub Registrar/Joint Sub Registrar, SRO Zirakpur, Sub-Tehsil
Zirakpur, office of Municipal Corporation, Opposite Police Station,
Zirakpur, Punjab - 140603
...Opposite parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposites parties No.1 & 2 Opposite party No.3 exparte vide order dated 12.09.2025 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The above captioned complaints bearing No.51 of 2025 and 52 of 2025 have been filed by the respective complainants under the provisions of Section 47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging the terms and conditions of the sale deed to be one-sided and unfair contract.
2] Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these complaints, as such, the same are being disposed by passing this common order. To do so, the facts are being culled from the file of consumer complaint no.51 of 2025 titled 'Riya Bansal Versus Akash Homes Premium Plus and others'.
Brief facts: (CC/51/2025) 3] The complainant, namely, Riya Bansal has alleged that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are joint owners of project Namely 'Akash Homes Premium Plus' situated at Akash Homes, Village Nabha MC and Sub Tehsil Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and they launched a project jointly by the name of 'Akash Homes Premium Plus'. The project was advertised as RERA approved project. The complainant agreed to purchase one residential flat with opposite party no.1 and entered into agreement to sell and made payments to opposite parties no.1 and 2. The complainant also availed the 3 loan facility from ICICI Bank for making payment of the flat. The complainant then demanded Occupancy and Completion Certificate from opposite parties no.1 and 2 which was promised to be provided at the time of registration of Sale Deed. The Sale Deed was executed before the Registering Authority on 26.12.2024 (Annexure C-5). 4] It has further been alleged that after the execution of Sale Deed, the complainant approached the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to provide the bills of the items/fixtures installed by them in the flat in order to change or seek warranty of the same in case door locks, chimney, bathroom fittings, cupboards, concealed lights etc. stopped working. When the digital lock stopped working, the complainant approached opposite parties no.1 and 2 for supply of Occupancy/Completion Certificate etc. and the RERA Registration Number which was not provided. It has further been alleged that clause no.13 has been inserted in the Sale Deed that "The purchaser or his agent etc. has no right to file any case in any court or consumer court regarding the demand or claim from the seller and from today after the registration of sale deed purchaser will be responsible for the above said property."
5] Alleging that it was the duty of the promoter to get pre approvals from the RERA Authority before selling flats etc. and citing various authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking directions to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to provide the Occupancy Certificate, Fire NOC and other necessary approvals of the Building to the complainant so as to ensure her safety; to provide the bills of the items/fixtures installed in the flat so as to claim the warranty of the items installed, which have been stopped working; to pay penal interest on the amount paid by the complainant from the date of deposit till the Occupancy Certificate, Fire NOC is not obtained by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, as the possession in the absence of Occupancy Certificate is invalid; Clause 13 of the Registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure C-5) be declared illegal, null and void being one sided and unfair contract as defined under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; pay compensation on account 4 of mental agony and harassment to the tune of ₹10,00,000/- along with cost of litigation amounting to ₹50,000/-.
Reply of opposite parties No.1 & 2:
6] Opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed joint written statement and took certain preliminary objection to the extent that there is no firm/company in the name of Akash Homes Premium Plus as alleged by the complainant and Raman Kumar and Puneet Garg were not promoters and do not hold any position in the firm namely Akash Homes Premium Plus as no such firm exists. Raman Kumar and Puneet Garg have filed the written statement in their individual capacity. It has further been pleaded that agreement to sell (Annexure C-2) was executed between husband of complainant and Raman Kumar and Sale Deed was executed between the complainant and Raman Kumar. It has further been pleaded that it was a sale of private property and no housing services have been availed by the complainant which can be considered as consumer dispute. 7] Another preliminary objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 is that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as it has been specifically stated/mentioned in the agreement Annexure C-2 in condition no.11 that if any dispute arises out of this bargain then the same shall be triable by the Derabassi Courts, moreover the complainant has already executed the sale deed before the registering authorities at Mohali, Punjab for the property, which is also situated in the revenue estate of District Mohali, Punjab, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable before the Hon'ble State Commission at Chandigarh.
8] It has further been pleaded that the complaint is based on false accusations and should be dismissed with exemplary costs for willful deception and the concealment of material facts from this Commission. 9] It has been specifically pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party no. 2 namely Sh. Puneet Garg, as Sh. Puneet Garg is not the executant of any agreement and also did not execute sale deed in favor of the complainant. It has further been pleaded that since no service of any kind has been provided by opposite 5 party no.2, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable against opposite party no.2. It has further been pleaded that opposite party no.2 has un-necessarily been dragged in the present complaint being the son of opposite party no.1 to put pressure on the family members. 10] It has further been pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the complaint has been instituted by complainant Riya Bansal, however, the document, Annexure C-2 placed on record by complainant, has been executed by one Sh. Dishant Jindal. It has further been pleaded that Sh. Dishant Jindal has not been arrayed as a party in the present complaint, moreover, the complaint has been filed against Akash Homes Premium Plus through its Partner /Proprietor/ Promoter/Developer, however there is no company/partnership firm/proprietor ship in the name of Akash Homes Premium Plus and the individual persons arrayed in the present compliant are not the promoters and developers. It has further been pleaded that the document, Annexure C-2, has been executed in between Raman Kumar and Dishant Jindal and the document, Annexure C-5, has been executed in between Raman Kumar and Riya Bansal, as such, there is private sale and purchase in between the parties and no housing service has been availed by the complainant and not provided by opposite parties No.1 & 2. It has further been pleaded that the area where the said plot is situated is known by the name of Akash Homes and there is no such company/firm by the name of Akash Homes Premium Plus. It has further been pleaded that the property stands mortgaged with the Lender Bank, however, the Lender Bank has also not been impleaded as a party in the present case. 11] Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have further raised an objection that the complaint does not fall under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as the paid-up value of the property in the present complaint is less than ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh). The complaint is also alleged to be not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission at Chandigarh. It has further been pleaded that the complainant - Riya Bansal has mentioned her address as House No.1471, First Floor, Deep Complex, Hallomajra, Chandigarh., U.T-160002 for the purpose of bringing the 6 present complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble State Commission at Chandigarh however in the entire documentary evidence placed on record, the complainant has mentioned her address as Flat No. 17A, Shiva Enclave, Adjoining Joshi Farm House, Nabha Pabat, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali). It has further been pleaded that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are situated at Panchkula-Haryana and the share purchased by the complainant is situated at Zirakpur-Punjab, as such, the present complaint filed at Chandigarh lacks the territorial jurisdiction of this Consumer Commission at Chandigarh.
12] It has further been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 since there is no builder and consumer buyers contract/agreement executed between the parties. It has been pleaded that the agreement placed on record by the complainant is a private agreement between the husband of the complainant (Sh. Dishant Jindal) and the seller, which got superseded after execution of the sale deed in between the complainant and the seller and in case the complainant wants to prove illegality in the terms of sale deed or want to challenge the validity of sale deed then the jurisdiction for the same lies with the Civil Court. 13] It has further been pleaded that the present disputes involves complicated questions of facts and law, which requires detail evidence and cross examination of witness, as such, the matter is liable to be relegated to the Civil Court for the proper adjudication disputed question of facts and law.
14] On merits, it has been pleaded that opposite party no.1, Raman Kumar, was the absolute owner of first floor constructed on plot no.11 and opposite party no.1 vide transfer deed dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure OP-1/1) got the 2/3rd share of three storied plot no.11 from his brother. It has further been pleaded that the complainant purchased the said share in her individual capacity from opposite party no.1. It has further been pleaded that the daughter in law namely, Pratibha, wife of opposite party no.2 was the absolute owner of plot no.10. It has further been pleaded that the complainant along with her family members approached opposite party no.1 7 for the purpose of buying the residential floors and bought two constructed floors i.e. First Floor of Plot No.10 and 11 situated at Village Nabha, MC and Tehsil Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali-Punjab. It has further been pleaded that the complainant bought the constructed first floor at plot no.11 and an amount of ₹10,00,000/- had to be paid as Earnest money. It has further been pleaded that initially, the amounts paid by the complainant are as under:-
Sr. No. Rupees Date Mode Deposited By
1 ₹5,00,000/- 03.07.2024 RTGS Sunita Rani
2 ₹2,50,000/- 22.07.2024 RTGS Dishant Jindal
3 ₹2,50,000/- 02.08.2024 Cash Riya Bansal
4 ₹4,00,000/- 29.10.2024 Cash Riya Bansal
5 ₹2,50,000/- 21.11.2024 Cash Riya Bansal
6 ₹26,10,000/- 30.12.2024 Transfer ICICI Bank
15] It has further been pleaded that since the amounts mentioned
at serial no.1 and 2 were deposited by third party, as such, the entry was got reversed by opposite parties no.1 and 2. It has further been pleaded that in total, an amount of ₹7,50,000/- was reversed in the accounts of third parties at Serial No.1 and 2 as per account statement, Annexure OP-1/2. It has further been pleaded that the complainant paid an amount of ₹26,10,000/- through ICICI Bank to opposite party no.2, as such, opposite party no.2 received only an amount of ₹35,10,000/- from the complainant. It has further been pleaded that since there is financial dispute in between the parties towards the sale consideration, as such, to a counter blast, the complainant has filed the present complaint in order to avoid the payment of balance sale consideration.
16] However, circulation of any pamphlet has been denied by opposite parties No.1 & 2 by stating that no RERA Registration Number is mentioned on the pamphlet so relied upon by the complainants. The issuance of letter-cum-demand note (Annexure C-3) has also been denied by opposite parties no.1 and 2. It has further been pleaded that Annexure C-3 placed on record is a handwritten document without the signature of the complainant on it. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has 8 purchased a share/floor of a constructed house on a plot, as such, the complainants, along with the owner of other floors, has to apply for completion certificate as required by the available bye-laws on the independent floors purchased by the residents. It has further been pleaded that there is no agreement executed between the parties for providing any completion/occupation certificate for the floor purchased by the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the complainant agreed to execute the sale deed after fully satisfying herself and the present complaint has been filed only to avoid the payment of outstanding consideration of the floor purchased by the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has taken the possession of the first floor of the house as duly mentioned in condition no.2 of the registered sale deed. It has further been pleaded that it has duly been mentioned under condition no.7 of the registered sale deed that the above floor has been sold on the basis of as it is, of whatsoever type it is and also in condition no.13 of the registered sale deed, it has been mentioned "That the said property is sold on as it is where it is basis and before the registration of the said property the purchaser has satisfied himself/herself regarding the finishing, size, construction, structure etc. and as per the desire of the purchaser the work to the said property is made and he is satisfied and there is no work pending in the said property to be done by the seller and from today purchaser will be responsible for finishing, size, construction, structure etc. of the said property. The purchaser or his agent etc. has no right to file any case in any court or consumer court regarding demand or claim from the seller and from today after the registration of sale deed purchaser will be responsible for the above said property". It has further been pleaded that the conditions of the sale deed can be challenged before the Civil Court/Revenue Authority and not before the Hon'ble State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the sale deed cannot be challenged before the Consumer Commission by filing the consumer complaints rather the Civil Court has power to declare the sale deeds as null and void after perusing the evidence and cross examining the witnesses. It has further been pleaded that there is no offer of possession rather the present case pertains to sale and purchase 9 of an independent floor on a constructed plot.
17] Pleading that the relief prayed by the complainant cannot be granted under the proceedings of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the present dispute does not pertains to developer and allottee rather a sale and purchase under a private contract between the parties, opposite parties no.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs. Rejoinder:
18] The complainant filed rejoinder wherein she reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and repudiated those as stated in the written version of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Replication:
19] Opposite parties No.1 & 2 also filed replication to the rejoinder of the complainant.
Evidence:
20] The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Written arguments:
21] Both the parties filed their respective written arguments and also made their submissions orally.
22] We have heard the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also gone through the pleadings/rival contentions of the parties, record of the case and the written arguments. Observations/Findings of this Commission: 23] The complainant has approached this Commission seeking relief against opposite parties no.1 and 2 to provide Occupancy Certificate etc. as well as to declare Clause 13 of the registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure C-5) as null and void under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
24] The factual position is that Sh. Dishant Jindal, husband of the complainant (Riya Bansal) entered into an agreement to sell with opposite parties no.1 and 2 for purchase of independent floor. Thereafter the Sale Deed was executed in the name of the complainant before opposite party no.3 i.e. Sub Registrar of the concerned District. The property is situated at Zirakpur, District Mohali. Opposite party no.1 and 2 are situated at 10 Panchkula. The present complaint has been filed at Chandigarh by the complainant by giving her residential address at Chandigarh. However, opposite parties no.1 and 2 specifically took the stand that the complainant do not reside at the address given in the complaint and the said address has been given only to bring the present complaint within the ambit of this Commission at Chandigarh and the complainant resides at Zirakpur. After the objection of territorial jurisdiction was taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, the complainant placed on record the copy of Aadhaar Card No.2485 5526 2212, which is post dated i.e. after the filing of the present complaint by the complainant, the address on the Aadhaar Card has been got changed. Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 has specifically argued on this point and also referred to the application i.e. IA/41/2026 for production of original documents in this regard.
25] It may be stated here that opposite parties no.1 and 2 also filed application i.e. IA/40/2026 for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the present is a case of sale of private property and no builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties. Moreover after the execution of the Sale Deed, which is an executed document, nothing remains to be done by this Commission and for challenging any term of the executed Sale Deed and for cancellation of any such term, the Civil Court is the only competent authority.
26] The facts, as alleged in the complaint and the stand taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 in the reply, have been considered and the following questions about the maintainability of the complaint are required to be decided first:-
i. Whether complicated facts are involved in the present case and matter needs to be referred to Civil Court?
ii. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
iii. Whether the complaint falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this State Commission situated at UT., Chandigarh? iv. Whether the complaint falls under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission?11
v. Whether this Commission can declare any Clause of the Sale Deed, which is a registered document under the Registration Act of the State, as null and void under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
vi. Whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
The above questions, one by one, are answered as under:-
(i) Whether complicated facts are involved in the present case and matter needs to be referred to Civil Court?
27] The complainant has averred in her complaint that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are builder/promoter of the flat purchased by her whereas opposite parties no.1 and 2 have vehemently denied that they are promoters of any housing project or that any flat was sold by them to the complainant. Rather they have specifically stated that it was a sale of the private property, floor wise. The complainant is relying upon the Agreement to Sell executed between her husband (Sh. Dishan Jindal) and Sh. Raman Kumar and the Sale Deed executed between her and Sh. Raman Kumar. No documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are builder/promoter registered under RERA. Further the total amount paid by the complainant and received by opposite parties no.1 and 2 are also disputed. The complainant has admitted in the rejoinder that more than one properties were purchase by her and her close relative together. Further there is a dispute regarding the actual address where the complainant resides, whether it is at Chandigarh or Zirakpur. It is a settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that dispute only of summary nature should be adjudicated by the Consumer Courts and wherever complicated facts are involved, the matter should be decided only by a Civil Court. Reference in this regard is made to the latest judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Bank Ltd. V.R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 341. In our considered view, since more than one facts have been disputes in the present case, the matter cannot be decided in the summary proceedings and is held accordingly.
12(ii) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
28] The next question to be decided in this case is as to whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as to whether the dispute comes under the definition of 'consumer dispute'. Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines 'consumer' as under:-
"(7) "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 service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose."
29] The above definition clearly state that housing construction comes under the service for the consideration paid by the complainant. In the present case, no services of any kind have been hired by the complainant from opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the agreement to sell and sale deed relate to the sale of immovable property were between two private persons which has resulted into the transfer of ownership. The two documents placed on record by the complainant i.e. Agreement to Sell and the Sale Deed nowhere denotes any promises made by opposite parties no.1 and 2 promising any services relating to housing construction. The Sale Deed was executed between the complainant and opposite parties no.1 and 2 before the Registering Authority of the District concerned and after the 13 registration of Sale Deed, the ownership rights were transferred in favour of the complainant and no consumer dispute emerges out of the Sale Deed. There is no builder buyer agreement nor any services have been availed from opposite parties no.1 and 2 for providing any housing construction to the complainant. The complainant has failed to place on record any such document showing that opposite party no.1 and 2 have promised to give any housing services to the complainant. Thus, the complainant cannot be held to be a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
(iii) Whether the complaint falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Chandigarh?
30] The complainant has filed the present complaint by mentioning her address at Chandigarh. Opposite party no.1 and 2 are situated at Panchkula and the property is situated within the jurisdiction of District Mohali. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 contended that the complainant resides at Zirakpur and not Chandigarh and no pleadings prove the complainant being the resident of Chandigarh. It has further been contended that after the objection qua jurisdiction was taken, the complainant filed a copy of Aadhaar Card alongwith the rejoinder. Thereafter opposite parties no.1 and 2 specifically filed application i.e. IA/41/2026 directing the complainant to place on record the original documents by arguing before this Commission that address on the Aadhaar Card has been changed after the filing of the complaint as is clear from the stamp on the copy of Aadhar Card which is of dated 11.9.2025 with time as 16:14:33. The complaint is dated 05.05.2025 and the reply is dated 30.6.2025. After this, the complainant filed a certificate dated 05.02.2026, Annexure C-14, issued by her husband, Sh. Dishan Jindal, Advocate mentioning that his wife Ms. Riya Bansal works as his office assistant at Chandigarh.
31] It is apposite to mention here that no such pleadings of work for gain were made in the consumer complaint filed by the complainant and at the time of filing complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that she is residing at Chandigarh, however, no documentary evidence proving the same has been placed on record along with the complaint. It is only when an objection of territorial jurisdiction was taken by opposite parties 14 no.1 and 2, the complaint filed copy of Aadhaar Card, however, the Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 pointed out that the address in the Aadhaar Card has been changed subsequently i.e. after the filing of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record the copy of Rent Agreement dated 30.04.2025 as Annexure C-6 alongwith rejoinder, to which, opposite parties no.1 and 2 took an objection that the said agreements are not authentic as the rent agreement for the property situated at Chandigarh has been made at Mohali, the stamp paper also purchased at Mohali and the attestation of the same has also been done at Mohali, as such, the same is not a genuine document and there is no serial number mentioned at the time of attesting the same, as such, the same cannot be relied upon.
32] Be that as it may, the onus was on the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint to clearly establish as to how the complaint falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this State Commission at Chandigarh. None of the opposite parties are situated at Chandigarh; the property is situated at District Mohali and only the resident of the complainant was relevant. The complainant should have pleaded the jurisdiction at the time of filing of complaint and should have filed relevant and valid documents to plead jurisdiction at the time of filing of complaint and the change of address in Aadhaar Card, after taking the objection by opposite parties No.1 & 2, does not bring the complaint filed before that date as complaint within the jurisdiction, rather proves otherwise. The complaint has been filed in May 2025 and the certificate of complainant working as office assistant with her husband issued in February 2026 does not vest territorial jurisdiction with this Commission at Chandigarh. Both the parties has also placed on record the affidavits of the resident proving their place of residence, however, the affidavits cannot be relied upon as the same is to be proven through cross examination of the executants, which cannot be done in summary proceedings. The change of address in Aadhaar Card after filing of the complaint, the address of the complainant mentioned in Sanction Letter [Annexure C-4], Registered Sale Deed [Annexure C-5] and the record of electricity bills placed on record by opposite parties No.1 & 2 as Annexure OP-1/7 to OP-1/12 clearly proves the complainant being residing at Mohali 15 and not at Chandigarh at the time of filing the present complaint. The change of address in Aadhaar Card after filing the complaint clearly proves an effort to fulfil the shortcoming after taking the objection by opposite parties No.1 & 2, as such, the complaint lacks the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission at Chandigarh.
(iv) Whether the complaint falls under the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission?
33] Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specific provisions have been made to file consumer complaint before the District Commission, State Commission and the National Commission on the basis of consideration paid. The dispute up-to the value of ₹50 lacs are required to be filed before the District Commission. For dispute concerning monetary value from ₹50 lacs to ₹2 crore can be filed before the State Commission and disputes where consideration paid is more than ₹2 crore, can be filed before the Hon'ble National Commission. In the present case, as per the documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, the complainant has paid only an amount of ₹35,10,000/, which is less than ₹50 lacs, therefore, the complaint does not fall under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
(v) Whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
34] We find force in this objection raised by opposite parties No.1 & 2 that complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the Lender - Bank has not been impleaded in the complaint.
(vi) Whether the State Commission can declare any Clause of the Sale Deed, which is a registered document under the Registration Act of the State, as null and void under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
35] The complainant has filed the complaint before this Commission pleading that Clause 13 of the Sale Deed executed between the parties be declared as null and void under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It may be stated here that as per Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against unfrair contracts, where the 16 value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees. Further as per Section 49(1)(2), the State Commission may also declare any terms of contract which is unfair to any consumer to be null and void. The complainant while instituting the present complaint failed to place on record any contract having been executed between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 2 which can be declared as null and void. The complainant, Riya Bansal, has executed Sale Deed of the property before the Government Registering Authority and after the execution of the Sale Deed, the terms got executed and rights of the property got transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant is producing the clauses of sale deed in her complaint ignoring the fact that the sale deed is not a contract rather the transfer of ownership rights. As per Chapter III, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the sale has been defined under Section 54 as per which, "the sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised." Section 54 further defines Contract for sale which is "a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties." It does not itself create any interest in or charge on such property. The sale deed in the present case has been executed under The Registration Act and enquiry pertaining to the sale deed has to be made by the registering office as prescribed under Section 34 of the Registration Act and thereafter the procedure is to be complied as per Section 35 of the Registration Act. Since the complainant has not disputed the terms of the sale deed at time of registration, as such, there is no occasion for the complainant to approach this Commission for declaring any terms of sale deed as unfair. The sale deed can only be declared void by the Civil Court where the parties can prove through evidence any fraud and misrepresentation as the cancellation of sale deed will further result in reversing the rights of the parties. The Consumer Fora is not empowered to declare any sale deed as void document on the pretext of fraud and misrepresentation.
36] Clearly the sale of immovable property is not a consumer dispute. Only the services relating to the 'housing construction' can be 17 challenged under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Sale Deed is an executed document and for challenging any term of the Sale Deed, Civil Court is the only appropriate authority. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case titled as 'Vijay Pal and others versus State of Haryana and others', CWP No.16775 of 2015 decided on 14.08.2015 has held as under:-
".....The Competent Court to declare the sale deeds as null and void on any of the ground is the Civil Court alone or may be writ court. By virtue of an order passed by this court, no jurisdiction can be conferred on the authorities to declare a sale deed as null and void. Therefore, a sale deed cannot be declared to be null and void by the authorities.
The disputed question of fact that as to whether there was misrepresentation, coercion or fraud exercised over the petitioners to execute the sale deeds could be examined only by the Civil Court which is competent to declare a sale deed null and void on the grounds pleaded on the basis of the evidence led before it......"
37] In view of above discussion, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 38] Accordingly, both the consumer complaints bearing No.51 of 2025 and 52 of 2025 stand dismissed with no order as to costs, being not maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
39] Pending applications, if any, in both these cases, stand disposed of, accordingly.
40] Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost forthwith and one copy thereof be placed in the connected consumer complaint i.e. CC/52/2025.
41] Files be consigned to the Record Room after completion. Pronounced.
24.03.2026 [PADMA PANDEY] PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 18