State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sudesh Kumari W/O. Shri Sukh Dev ... vs M/S Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. on 27 February, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 11.12.2025
Pronounced on: 27.02.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO 1070 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 09/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Naveen Kumar Pathak
S/o Sh. Tilok Pathak
R/o FP/PRIMROSEC/303 in Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
2. Mukta Sharma
W/o Naveen Kumar Pathak
R/o FP/PRIMROSEC/303 in Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
3. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab - 140301
4. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
ist
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 1
FIRST APPEAL NO 1071 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 10/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Rajinder Katoch
S/o Pramod Singh,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/B/1403,
in Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. M/s Vishnu Facility, Florence Park,
Through Its Managing Director
R/o 1218,12th Floor, DLF Tower B,
District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi -110025
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1072 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 11/2022 by the State
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 2
1
V
1. Sh. Vishal
S/o Lt. Satpal and Smt. Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Late Shri Satpal,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/202,
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab -140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1073 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 12/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Amarjeet Kaur
W/o Harpal Singh
R/o B-0406, Florence Park,
New Chadigarh
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 3
1 R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab - 140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1104 of 2023
(Against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed in CC Nol9/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh )
l.Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab -140301
...Appellant
V.
1. Manish Choure
S/o Ramsh Choure
R/o C-705, Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
2. Sonali Choure
W/o Manish Choure
R/o C-705, Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
3. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
Email: [email protected]
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 4
4. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1105 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 09/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab -140301
Email: [email protected],
Through Sh. Arun Dhiman, S/o Sh. Amarnath,
Authorized Signatory of,
Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
...Appellant
V
1. Naveen Kumar Pathak
S/o Sh. Tilok Pathak
R/o FP/PRIMROSEC/303 in Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
2. Mukta Sharma
W/o Naveen Kumar Pathak
R/o FP/PRIMROSEC/303 in Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
3. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D,
Chandigarh - 160009
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 5
Email: [email protected]
4. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1106 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 10/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh )
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab -140301
Email: [email protected],
Through Sh. Arun Dhiman, S/o Sh. Amarnath,
Authorized Signatory of,
Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
...Appellant
V
1. Rajinder Katoch
S/o Pramod Singh,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/B/1403,
in Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D,
Chandigarh -160009
Email: [email protected]
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 6
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1107 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 11/2022 by the
State commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman Having Its Registered Office At:
B/003, Florence Park Sector
14 Mullanpur Village
DhodheMajra SAS Nagar
(Mohali) Punjab, 140301
...Appellant
V
1. Shri Vishal
S/o Late Sh.Satpal,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/202
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh.
2. Smt.Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Late Sh.Satpal,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/202
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
3.M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
4. Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3,
sector 18 Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh- 160018
Respondents
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 7
(
FIRST APPEAL NO 1108 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 12/2022 by the
State commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park,Sector 14
Mullanpur Village JDhodheMajra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab,140301
...Appellant
V
1. Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur,
W/o Mr. Harpal Singh, r/o
B-406 Florence Park, New
Chandigarh
2. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
3. Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3, sector 18
Madhya Marg, Chandigharg- 160018
Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1109 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 20/2023 by the State
commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park,
Sector 14, Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Maj ra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab, 140301
...Appellant
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 8
-4
v
l.Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
S/o Jagdish Sharma, R/o
FP/PRIMROSE/C/203,
Forence Park,
NewChandigarh
2.Mrs. Bhawan Kumari,
W/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/203,
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
3.M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
4.Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3, sector 18
Madhya Marg,
Chandigharg- 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1110 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 21/2023 by the
State commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park Sector 14
Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab, 140301
...Appellant
V
1. Jugjeev Kaur,
D/o Late Surinder Singh,
R/o Primerose A-906,
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 9
<
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
2. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
3. Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3, sector 18
Madhya Marg,
Chandigharg- 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1111 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 22/2023 by the
State commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman Having Its Registered
. Office At: B/003, Florence Park Sector 14
Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab, 140301 2
...Appellant
V
1. Smt.Sudesh Kumari,
W/o Shri Sukh Dev Singh, R/o
FP/PRIMROSE/B/1505
Florence Park,New Chandigarh,
2. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
3. Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3,
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 10
*
<
sector 18 Madhya Marg, Chandigharg-160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1112 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 23/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)Punjab, 140301
...Appellant
V
l.Priyanka Raizada
W/o Sumit Prashar
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/506
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh.
2. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park, Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
First floor, Block B, Plot No. 3,
Sector 18A (Near Govt. Press U.T.)
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1113 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 24/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 11
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 , Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, 140301
...Appellant
V
1. Smt. Chandra Prabha Gupta
w/o Sandeep Kumar Gupta
2. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
h/o Chandra Prabha Gupta
Both residing at:
PRIMROSE/B/401
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
3.M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park, Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
4. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA
(Near Govt. Press U.T.) Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1114 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 25/2023 by the State
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 12
Office At: B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur Village
Dhodhe Majra ,SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
...Appellant
V
1. Vinod Kumar Singh
s/o Lt. Vakil Singh
2. Urmila Singh
w/o Lt. Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Both residing at:
A-701, Florence Park
New Chandigarh
3. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park,Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19 ,1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
4. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1182 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 20/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park,Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
...Appellant
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 13
1. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
S/o Jagdish Sharma, R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/203
In Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. Bhawna Kumari
W/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/203
In Florence Park, New Chandigarh
3. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab, 140301
4. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
Near Govt. Press U.T., Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh -160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1183 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 21/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park,Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19 ,1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Jugjeev Kaur
D/o Lt. Surinder Singh
R/o PRIMROSE/A/906
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 14
4
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, 140301
3. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A
(Near Govt. Press U.T.) Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1184 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 22/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Sudesh Kumari w/o Sh. Sukh Dev
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/B/1505 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab - 140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 15
Chandigarh -160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1185 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 24/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Chandra Prabha Gupta,
W/o Sandeep Kumar Gupta,
R/o PRIMROSE/B/401 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2.Sandeep Kumar Gupta,
H/o Chandra Prabha Gupta,
R/o PRIMROSE/B/401 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
3.Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14,
Mullanpur, Village Dhode, Majra,
SAS Nagar(Mohali), Punjab - 140301
4.Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 16
FIRST APPEAL NO 1227 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 25 / 2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Vinod Kumar Singh
S/o Late Vakil Singh
R/o A-7-1, Florence Park
New Chandigarh
2. Urmila Singh
W/o Late Kamlesh Kumar Singh
R/o A-7-1, Florence park
New Chandigarh
3. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14,
Mullanpur, Village Dhode, Majra,
SAS Nagar(Mohali),Punjab - 140301
4. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160018
... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO 1229 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 19/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 17
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Manish Choure
S/o Sh. Trilok Pathak
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/303 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. jMukta Sharma /
W/o Manish Choure
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/303 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
3. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14,
Mullanpur, Village Dhode, Majra,
SAS Nagar(Mohali), Punjab - 140301
4. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 1230 of 2023
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 23/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 18
F
Chandigarh - 160009
...Appellant
V
1. Priyanka Raizada
W/o Sumit Parashar
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/506 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14,
Mullanpur, Village Dhode, Majra,
SAS Nagar(Mohali), Punjab -140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 595 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 19/2023 by the
State commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
l.Manish Choure
S/o Ram Chandra Choure R/o.
C-705 in Florence Park
New Chandigarh
2. Sonali Choure
W/o Manish Choure
R/o. C-705 in Florence Park
New Chandigarh
..... Appellants
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 19
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Managing Director,
B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur
Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
3. Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3, sector 18
Madhya Marg,
Chandigharg- 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 600 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 20/2023 by the
State commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
S/o Jagdish Sharma
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/203,
Florence Park, New Chandigar
2. Mrs. Bhawan Kumari,
W/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/203,
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
...Appellants
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor, Sec-9D
Florence Park,New Chandigarh
FIRST APPEAL Nos-1070 OF 2023 & 32 other appeals 20
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Managing Director,
B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur
Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
3.Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3, sector 18
Madhya Marg,
Chandigharg- 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 601 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 21/2023 by the State
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Jugjeev Kaur,
D/o Late Surinder Singh,
R/o Primerose A-906,
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
...Appellant
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19, First Floor,
Sec-9D Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Managing Director,
B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur
Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 21
■ •>
3. Real Estate Authority,
First Floor, Block B, Plot No. 3, sector 18
Madhya Marg,Chandigarh- 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 603 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 23/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Priyanka Raizada
W/o Sumit Parashar
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/506 in
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
...Appellant
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
Email Id: [email protected]
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab - 140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 22
FIRST APPEAL NO 609 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 11/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Sh. Vishal
S/o Lt. Satpal
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/202,
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
2. Smt. Lakshmi Devi
W/o Lt. Shri Satpal
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/C/202,
Florence Park, New Chandigarh
...Appellants
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
Email Id: [email protected]
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14, Mullanpur,
Village Dhode, Majra, SAS Nagar(Mohali),
Punjab - 140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.), Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 614 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 12/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 23
1. Amarjeet Kaur
W/o Harpal Singh
R/o B/406, Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
...Appellant
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director
Having Its Registered Office At:
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec-9D
Chandigarh - 160009
Email Id: [email protected]
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP,
Through Its Managing Director,
R/o B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14,
Mullanpur, Village Dhode, Majra,
SAS Nagar(Mohali), Punjab - 140301
3. Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
1st Floor, Block B, Plot No.3, Sector ISA,
(Near Govt. Press U.T.),
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160018
... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 634 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 10/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Rajinder Katoch
S/o Shri Pramod Singh Katoch
R/o FP/PRIMROSE/B/1403
Florence Park
New Chandigarh (Punjab)
...Appellant
V
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 24
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park, Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19,1st Floor, Sec -9D, Chandigarh, 160009
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park Sector 14
Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab, 140301
3. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B Plot No.3, Sector 18A
(Near Govt. Press U.T.)Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 641 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 25/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Shri Vinod Kumar Singh
s/o Lt. Vakil Singh
2. Urmila Singh
w/o Lt. Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Both Residents of
A-701, Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
...Appellants
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park, Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19 1st Floor, Sec -9D, Chandigarh, 160009
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 25
2.Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Arun Dhiman, Having Its Registered
Office At: B/003, Florence Park, Sector 14
Mullanpur Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab, 140301
3. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B Plot No.3, Sector ISA
(Near Govt. Press U.T.) Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 16001S
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 643 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 24/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Smt. Chandra Prabha Gupta
W/o Sandeep Kumar Gupta
2. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
H/o Smt. Chandra Prabha Gupta
Both Residents of
FP/PRIMROSE/B/401
Florence Park
New Chandigarh
...Appellants
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park,
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19
1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 26
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative, Sh. Arun Dhiman
Having Its Registered Office At:
B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur
Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
3. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B
Plot No.3, Sector ISA (Near Govt. Press U.T.)
Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 649 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 09/2022 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Naveen Kumar Pathak
S/o Shri Trilok Pathak
2. Smt. Mukta Sharma
w/o Naveen Kumar Pathak
Both Residents of
FF/PRIMROSE/C/303
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
...Appellants
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park,
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 27
■>
1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative, Sh. Arun Dhiman
Having Its Registered Office At:
B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur
Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
3. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B
Plot No.3, Sector ISA (Near Govt. Press U.T.)
Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO 667 of 2024
(Against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CC No 22/2023 by the
State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1. Smt. Sudesh Kumari
w/o Shri Sukh Dev Singh
R/o FP/Primrose/B/1505
Florence Park,
New Chandigarh
...Appellant
V
1. M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd.,
Florence Park,
Through its Managing Director,
SCO 18-19
1st Floor, Sec -9D,
Chandigarh, 160009
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 28
2. Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP
Through Its Authorized Representative, Sh. Arun Dhiman
Having Its Registered Office At:
B/003, Florence Park
Sector 14 Mullanpur
Village Dhodhe Majra
SAS Nagar (Mohali)
Punjab, 140301
3. Real estate Regulatory Authority,
First Floor, Block B
Plot No.3, Sector ISA (Near Govt. Press U.T.)
Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh, 160018
...Respondents
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Appellant(s):
For the Vishnu Facilites : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
For Ambika Realcon : Mr. Mr. Manpreet Kapoor & Karan
Kapoor, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Ram Naresh yadav, Mr.
Sarnesh Kumar yadav& Mr. Farooq Razza,
Advocates
JUDGMENT
Date: 27.02.2025 DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
1. The present common judgment proposed to decide 33 First Appeals preferred by the complainants and the opposite parties no 1& 2 (each filed 11 Appeals) arising out of the common order dated 21.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 29 \ Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission"). The contesting parties for convenience are being referred to as referred in the original complaints.
2. The details of the First Appeals covered in this common judgment are as under:
S. No. First Appeal no. Title___________________________________ 1 1070/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD. FLORENCE PARK THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs NAVEEN KUMAR PATHAK & ORS 2 1071/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD., FLORENCE PARK THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, vs RAJINDER KATOCH 3 1072/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD., FLORENCE PARK vs VISHAL & ORS.
4 1073/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD., FLORENCE PARK THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs AMARJEET KAUR 5 1104/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs MANISH CHOURE 6 1105/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs NAVEEN KUMAR PATHAK 7 1106/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs RAJINDER KATOCH______________________ 8 1107/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 30 A vs SHRI VISHAL 9 1108/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs MRS.AMARJEET KAUR 10 1109/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA 11 1110/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs JUGJEEV KAUR 12 1111/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs SMT. SUDESH KUMARI 13 1112/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs PRI YANKA RAIZ ADA 14 1113/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs SMT. CHANDRA PRAHBA GUPTA 15 1114/2023 SHRI VISHNU FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLP vs VINOD KUMAR SINGH 16 1182/2023 M/S. AMBIKA RE ALCON PVT LTD Vs MR. RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA 17 1183/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD vs JUGJEEV KAUR FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 31 < 18 1184/2023 M/S. AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD vs SUDESH KUMARI 19 1185/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD vs MR. CHANDRA PRABHA GUPTA 20 1127/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT.LTD vs MR. VINOD KUMAR SINGH 21 1129/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD., FLORENCE PARK THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs MANISH CHOURE 22 1230/2023 M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD., FLORENCE PARK THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs PRIYANKA RAIZADA 23 595/2024 MANISH CHOURE vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LIMITED 24 600/2024 RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LIMITED 25 601/2024 MR. JUGJEEV KAUR vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD
26. 603/2024 PRIYANKA RAIZADA vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LMITED FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 32 27 609/2024 VISHAL vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD 28 614/2024 AMARJEET KAUR vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD 29 634/2024 RAJINDER KATOCH vs MS AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD 30 641/2024 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SINGH vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD.
31 643/2024 SMT. CHANDRA PRABHA GUPTA vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD 32 649/2024 NAVEEN KUMAR PATHAK vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD.
33 667/2024 SMT. SUDESH KUMARI vs M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT. LTD.
3. The similar facts and questions of law are involved in these Appeals and accordingly are being disposed of by this common judgment. The First Appeal bearing no. 1070 of 2023 arising out the Consumer Complaint bearing no. 09/2022 is taken as lead case for sake of reference.
4. The relevant facts as per the said complaint are that the complainants of the Consumer Complaint bearing no. 09/2022 had booked residential unit in the housing complex project under name and style of Florence Park situated in New FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 33 Chandigarh which was to be developed by the opposite party no.l. The complainants booked the flat bearing no. 303, Prime Rose C, the Florence Park, New Chandigarh for their personal use and occupation and accordingly entered into the transaction with the opposite party no 1 on the attractive representations, promises, and assurances made by the opposite party no 1 through their sales brochure and marketing materials. The complainants were led to believe and understand that they would be provided with a decent, comfortable residential unit situated in high-class surroundings with all modem amenities and facilities as promised. The complainants after relying upon representations and the commitment demonstrated by the opposite party no 1 through the contractual documentation and promotional materials proceeded to book the flat on 07.06.2017. The complainants received an allotment letter dated 29.06.2017 from the opposite party no 1 and also executed a Builder-Buyer Agreement on 21.06.2017. The complainants to meet the payment demands and financial obligations imposed by the opposite party no 1 were constrained to take housing loan from Aditya Birla Bank to enable them to make timely payment to the opposite party no 1 in accordance with the payment schedule.
4.1 The allotment letter dated 29.06.2017 confirmed that the complainants were allotted flat no. 303 in Prime Rose C Tower measuring 1,575 square feet for a total sale consideration of Rs.58,66,600/-. The Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 21.06.2017 executed between the parties contained specific stipulations regarding timely delivery of possession along with all promised compliances, amenities and facilities. The agreed date of possession as per the said agreement was 21.07.2020. The opposite party no 1 on 25.07.2017 communicated a construction-linked payment plan designated as a Subvention Linked Plan to the complainants. The opposite party no 1 as per terms of the subvention scheme undertook a binding obligation to deliver possession within the stipulated time period and failing which the opposite party no 1 would be liable to bear and pay the home loan installments for every period of delay. The complainants made FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 34 payments in timely manner from 2017 until the date of possession as per the payment schedule. The opposite party no. 1 has failed to honor commitment and defaulted in handing over timely possession by the agreed date of 21.07.2020. The opposite party no 1 on 27.02.2021 issued an offer of possession letter to the complainants. The complainants in response to offer of possession letter communicated their objections through written responses dated 05.03.2021, 15.03.2021, and 16.03.2021 wherein specifically highlighted that the unit was deficient in the promised facilities and amenities and suffered from several defects which required rectification prior to taking possession. The defects and deficiencies pointed out by the complainants also included water seepage in the unit; poor quality and substandard woodwork and broken marble flooring in the kitchen area. The opposite party no 1 despite objections of the complainants and without addressing the deficiencies issued another letter of possession dated 14.05.2021. The opposite party no 1 subsequently issued no dues certificate on 19.05.2021 to the complainants. The complainants to avoid continued financial burden of rental accommodation took over possession of the unit under protest on or around May 2021 while reserving their rights and remedies in law. The complainants were also compelled to get the unit registered in their name. The opposite party no 1 vide letter of possession dated 27.02.2021 unilaterally claimed an increased super area of the unit along with a corresponding increase in the sale price and it was sought to be imposed upon the complainants under one-sided clauses in the agreement which were enforced upon the complainants at the time of possession. The said unilateral and arbitrary action on the part of the opposite party no. 1 were contrary to the fundamental principles of contract law and constitute gross misuse of their dominant contractual position. The opposite party no 1 has without obtaining consent or permission from any of the residents and allottees constructed an additional tower within the project which substantially reduced the common area and amenities. The opposite party no 1 carried out construction by altering and deviating from the sanctioned plan FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 35
- approved by the competent authorities and caused grave prejudice to the residents including the complainants.
4.2 The opposite party no. 1 carried construction activities throughout the night which caused severe disturbance, noise pollution, and disruption and constituted a serious impediment and infringement upon the complainants' fundamental right to life, peaceful enjoyment of property and quiet possession of their residential unit. The opposite party no 1 despite having handed over possession but the housing society and project was lacking a valid Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority and due to this reason the possession offered by the opposite party no 1 was illegal invalid, and in violation of applicable laws and regulations. The opposite party no 1 in addition to this was engaged in the selling parking spaces which misled the allottees and buyers regarding the nature and quality of amenities being provided. The complainants claimed that they have been subjected to unfair trade practices, deficiency in service, and breach of contractual obligations by the opposite party no 1 warranting appropriate relief and compensation. The complainants being aggrieved by the acts of the opposite party no 1 filed the present consumer complaint bearing no 09/2022 titled as Naveen Kumar Pathak & another V M/s Ambika Realcon Private Limited & others under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act") before the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as H ''the State Commission") seeking appropriate relief. The complainants of other 10 complaints filed the similar complaints as detailed herein above.
5. The opposite party no. 1 filed written statement/reply before the State Commission wherein denied averments as alleged in the complaint and contested the claim advanced by the complainants on numerous grounds. The complainants have deliberately concealed material facts rendering their complaint liable to be dismissed. The State Commission lacks pecuniary and territorial jurisdictions to entertain the present complaint. The opposite party no FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 36 1 1 has paid interest on the loan amounts raised by the complainants to the concerned bank under the subvention scheme and as such the complainants are not entitled to claim interest for any delay in offering possession of their unit. The complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and due to misjoinder of opposite party no.3 as a necessary party. The complainants were irregular in making payments towards the price of unit but were not charged for delayed payment interest as a gesture of good faith. The time period for possession automatically stood extended in accordance with the terms of the agreement as the complainants defaulted in timely payments towards unit. The possession of the unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months with a grace period of 6 months and the opposite party no 1 offered the possession within the stipulated time frame. The opposite party no 3 also granted requisite permissions and sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The opposite party no 1 offered the possession of the unit after obtaining partial completion certificates from the competent authorities and occupation certificates were also subsequently obtained. The competent authorities extended the period of completion of the project for six months vide circular dated 28.10.2020 on account of the COVID- 19 pandemic. The opposite party no 1 provided most of the amenities including intercom facilities, convex mirrors in the basement, parking spaces, children's parks, sand pits for children to play, benches, and common areas at the project site and the complainants did not raise any protest or objection at time of taking possession of the. The complainants as per clause 11.3 of the agreement have themselves agreed to pay maintenance charges as fixed by the opposite party no
2. The clubhouse and its allied facilities were under construction and would be offered to the residents at the project site after completion of the entire project which was scheduled to be completed by 31.12.2023 as extended by six months by the opposite party no 3 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint is not maintainable due to arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 37 L parties. The opposite party no 1 prayed that the complaint be dismissed. The opposite party no 1 filed written statements/replies in other complaints also on almost similar facts.
6. The opposite party no.2 filed written statement/reply wherein reiterated grounds of dismissal of the complaint as taken by the opposite party no 1 regarding non-maintainability of the complaints due to arbitration clause contained in the agreements and lack of territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions. The complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous. The complainants have deliberately concealed material facts rendering the complaint liable to be dismissed. The complainants have failed to seek requisite permission for filing joint complaint and this procedural irregularity alone is sufficient ground for dismissal of the complaint. The possession of the unit has been duly delivered to the complainants after obtaining the necessary occupation and partial completion certificates and consequently maintenance charges were being levied for the upkeep of common areas, security arrangements, open gymnasium facilities, parking areas, elevators, and other amenities. The complainants have raised allegations of cheating against the opposite parties and as such the complaints ought to be relegated to the civil court. The complainants were liable to pay delayed payment interest in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act if the complainants fail to make timely payment of maintenance charges. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the complaint involve complex questions of law which cannot be properly adjudicated by the State Commission. The opposite party no 3 due to COVID-19 pandemic has extended time periods for ongoing projects. The opposite party no 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The opposite party no 2 also filed written statements/replies in other 10 complaints filed by the different complainants containing almost similar averments.
7. The opposite party no.3 filed a short reply wherein stated that the complainants have initiated proceedings under the Act and as such the FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 38 complainants are precluded from invoking provision of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The complainants sought only one relief against the opposite party no.3 regarding clubbing of the entire project under one RERA number which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The complainants have sought substantive reliefs against the opposite parties no 1 and 2 and as such the complaints are not maintainable against opposite party no.3.
8. The complainants in rejoinders reiterated the averments contained in the complaint and controverted averments as mentioned in written statement filed by the opposite parties. The contesting parties also adduced evidence by tendering affidavits along with documents.
9. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the complaint. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced verbatim as under:-
Consumer Complaint no. 09 of 2022
i) Opposite party no.l shall provide all the basic amenities and facilities as promised in the brochure and the agreements, as discussed above and also to rectify the defects of leakage of water in the parking area/surroundings, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall be liable to pay to the complainant (s), compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the complainant(s) against the unit in question, from the date of default, till realization.
ii) Opposite party no.l shall refund the amount received from the complainant(s) in this case, for increase in area, over and above 5% of the original area of the unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter the said payable amount shall carry penal interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
iii) Opposite party no 1 shall pay to the complainant(s) compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. for delay in delivery of possession of the unit in question, starting from 20.12.2020 to 20.05.2021, on the entire deposited amount, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter the entire accumulated amount for the said period shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this payment is made.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 39
iv) Opposite party no.2 shall refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by it from the complainant(s) against the unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter the entire accumulated amount for the said period shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that opposite party no.2 shall give regular power supply/back up and also water supply to the complainant(s) qua the unit in question, over and above maintenance of the facilities already provided and to be provided by opposite party no.l. It shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till all the basic amenities and facilities, referred to above, are provided by opposite party no. 1 at the project site.
v) Opposite party no.2 shall refund the entire amount, if any, received by it towards maintenance charges before issuance of occupation certificate(s) by the competent authorities, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter the entire accumulated amount for the said period shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded.
vi) Opposite party no.l shall pay to the complainant(s) lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.l lac for mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
10. The opposite party no. 1 being aggrieved filed present First Appeal bearing no. 1070 of 2023 (total 11 Appeals as detailed herein above) to challenge the impugned order under section 51 of the Act. The opposite party no 1 challenged the impugned order primarily on grounds that the State Commission has committed a grave error in law and facts while passing the impugned order. The State Commission has not considered the relevant documents placed on record by the opposite party no 1. The State Commission has not properly appreciated the factual matrix of the case and has overlooked material crucial aspects. The opposite party nol diligently completed development work in respect of the residential towers number 7 and 8 namely Primrose B and C and ensured completion of the construction in all respects prior to 22.10.2020 which was approximately four months before the issuance of the offer of possession to the FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 40 ( 1 allottees. The opposite party no 1 on 22.10.2020 submitted an application to the local development authority for the issuance of partial completion certificate in respect of the towers numbered as 7 and 8. The local development authority GMADA despite timely completion of construction and application for statutory certification required approximately four months to complete their procedural formalities for issuance of the requisite statutory approvals and procedural delay on the part of the development authority was not attributable to the opposite party no 1 but possession was nevertheless delivered to the allottees in timely manner. The competent authority GMADA issued partial completion certificate after comprehensive verification of basic services and amenities prior to its issuance. The opposite party no 1 developed the project in strict accordance with the approved phase wise development plans which was duly sanctioned by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab which is a competent regulatory body governing real estate development in the region. The systematic execution of the project in alignment with these sanctioned plans demonstrates adherence to regulatory requirements and ensures orderly development of the project. It was mutually agreed in terms of Clause 28(a) of the Builder Buyers Agreement that possession of the apartment after development would be handed over within a period of 36 months or within an extended period of 6 months. The Clause 28(c) of the Agreement specifically addressed the phase-wise development of the project and clearly stipulated that complete common amenities and facilities, including the Club and other common areas are to be provided only upon complete development of all phases of the project. The project in question was duly registered under the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the development was being undertaken strictly in accordance with the sanctioned phase wise permissions and approvals granted by the competent authority. The completion date of each phase was extended for an additional period of 6 months pursuant to a circular issued by the RERA Authority. The State Commission while passing the impugned order has completely overlooked and FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 41 failed to take into consideration material facts and has consequently erred in holding that basic amenities and facilities are lacking in the project. The opposite party no 2 prayed that the impugned order be set aside. The opposite party no 1 also challenged the impugned order in other 10 First Appeals preferred by it on similar grounds.
10. The opposite party no 2 in First Appeals (total 11 First Appeals as detailed herein above) also challenged the impugned order primarily on grounds that the State Commission has failed to consider and appreciate documents placed on record. The opposite party no 1 and the opposite party no 2 are separate entities. The opposite party no 2 despite being nominated agency of the opposite party no 1 but the rights and liabilities/functions and duties of the opposite party no 2 are governed by a separate agreement. The opposite party no 2 is not seeking payment of maintenance charges from the allottees depending upon the amenities and facilities at site but maintenance charges are being demanded in terms of rights and liabilities as per maintenance agreement. The State Commission did not consider that the quantum of maintenance charges depends upon existing day to day expenditure involved in maintaining the project. The State Commission erred in directing refund of 30% of the maintenance charges but there was no allegation about deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no 2. The opposite party no 2 also challenged the impugned order on various order and prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
11. The complainants in their First Appeals (total 11 First Appeals as detailed herein above) challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the State Commission did not allow the prayer regarding waiver of unjust additional charges for extra area of the units. The State Commission failed to direct the i opposite party no 1 to demolish/raze the unauthorized construction of 9th Tower which was raised without consent of the complainants. The State Commission did not compensate the complainants for sub-standard quality of material used in the kitchen. The opposite party no. 1 despite taking charges did not provide FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 42 :_A facilities such as intercom connections, LPG Pipeline, electricity connection etc. The opposite party no 1 failed to resolve various issues pertaining to the facilities. The maintenance cost was charged without justification. The complainants also challenged impugned order on various other grounds.
12. We have heard Sh. Nikhil Jain, Advocate assisted by Sh. Ram Naresh yadav, Sh. Samesh Kumar Yadav & Sh. Farooq Razza, Advocates for complainants; Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party no 2 and Sh. Manpreet Kapoor, Advocate assisted by Sh. Karan Kapoor Advocate for the opposite party no 2. We have also considered the relevant records including the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
13. The counsel for the complainants in 11 First Appeals besides referring the factual background primarily countered the contention of the opposite party no 1 that the penalty clause stands excluded due to subvention clause as that the opposite party no 1 has paid interest to the bank and moreover said clause does not exist in various appeals and the opposite party no 1 cannot place reliance upon Clause 28(f) to deny the payment of delay penalty when there is no such clause in Builder-Buyer Agreement. The subvention scheme was a marketing scheme offered by the opposite party no 1 to prospective buyers and the particular choice of a payment plan cannot in any manner dilute or extinguish the contractual or statutory protection available to the allottees against inordinate delay in delivery of possession. The subvention scheme confers no liberty upon the opposite party no 1 to delay possession and said scheme in essence is a purely financial arrangement whereby the builder i.e. the opposite party no 1 undertakes to pay pre-EMI interest to the lending bank for a specified period. The counsel further argued that a subvention scheme does not and cannot modify the liability of the opposite party no 1 for delayed compensation under the Builder-Buyer Agreement or under consumer law. It was further argued that the opposite party no 1 has executed multiple sets of Builder-Buyer Agreements with the complainants each containing material variations in terms and FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 43 conditions. The opposite no 1 has failed to adhere to the standard Builder-Buyer Agreement prescribed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act and has instead incorporated one-sided, arbitrary, and unfair clauses to the detriment of the allottees. The opposite party no 1 never informed the complaints that the Builder-Buyer Agreement executed with the complainants is different from agreements executed with other allottees. The opposite party no 1 never made effort to execute an updated and uniform Builder-Buyer Agreement incorporating consistent clauses which does amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the applicable law. The counsel further argued that the opposite party no 1 has imposed arbitrary and unjustified charges upon the complainants without any contractual or statutory basis.
13.1 The counsel for the complainants further argued that the opposite party no. 2 started to levy maintenance charges immediately after issuance of the possession letter rather than upon the actual physical possession of the apartment by the allottees. The allottees were entitled for a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the possession letter and maintenance charges can only be levied after the expiry of this 90 days grace period. The counsel for the complainants also referred Clause 11.1 of the Builder-Buyer Agreement and stated that maintenance charges shall become payable only after the expiry of 90 days from the issuance of the occupancy certificate or part-occupancy certificate in consonance with the provisions of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995. The counsel further argued that the excess amount demanded by the opposite party no 1 vide Welcome Letter dated 18.01.2022 purportedly on account of an alleged increase in super area is wholly unjustified and said demand does not correspond to any increase in the carpet area of the respective units which is in direct violation of Condition No. 1.7 of the Builder-Buyer Agreement. It was further argued that under Condition No. 1.6 of the Builder- Buyer Agreement any addition or alteration exceeding 5% of the sanctioned plan, layout plan, or specifications cannot be carried out without the prior FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 44 written consent of the allottees but in certain units increase in flat area exceeds 5% of the total area but the opposite party no 1 did not obtain the requisite prior written consent from the allottees. The counsel emphatically argued that the opposite party no 1 is liable to refund excess amounts wrongfully collected from the complainants being contrary to the express terms of the Builder-Buyer Agreement.
13.2 The counsel for the complainants further argued that the project was initially sanctioned by the competent authority on the basis of two basements which were designated for parking purposes but the opposite party no 1 in collusion with officials of GMADA subsequently obtained revised sanctions without constructing basement No. 2. The opposite party no Ideveloped mechanical parking within a single basement situated at a prime location in the vicinity of Towers 6 to 8 with intention of maximising profit by selling these mechanical parking slots to residents under the guise of "additional parking." It was further argued that the project originally comprised only eight residential towers but the opposite party no 1 subsequently unilaterally added a 9 tower to the project without obtaining the prior consent of the existing buyers which has resulted in significant reduction of the usable green and open area available within the project. The counsel for the complainants also argued that the opposite party no. 2 was required to execute a separate maintenance agreement with each of the buyer as a precondition to levying maintenance charges and did not have legal authority to levy maintenance charges upon the majority of the complainants who have not executed such agreement.
14. The counsel for the opposite party no.l besides referring the factual background of the case primarily argued that the issuance of the Partial Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate by the competent authority constitutes conclusive evidence that all essential and basic amenities were duly available and complete in all material respects at the time when possession was offered to the allottees. The clubhouse and other common facilities have been FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 45 fully operational and in active use by the residents for over three years. The residents of the project including the complainants not only utilize these facilities regularly but also organizing and participating in annual functions during festivals which reflected enjoyment of the project amenities. The State Commission has erroneously treated the delay in providing ancillary facilities at par with the non-provision of essential amenities thereby arriving at a finding which was unjust and legally untenable. The counsel for the opposite party no 1 further argued that the agreements executed between the parties do not contain any stipulation whatsoever making the delivery of possession of the respective units contingent upon the completion of project facilities and there is no reference in the agreement to any club, clubhouse, or other ancillary or common facilities forming part of the builder's obligations with respect to possession. The counsel for the opposite party no 1 after referring Clause 7 of the agreement argued that it indicates that the obligation to deliver possession relates specifically and exclusively to the individual unit allotted to the buyer and the Clause 28 expressly provides that the clubhouse and allied amenities are to be completed and handed over only upon completion of the entire project which is distinct from and independent of the possession of individual units. It was empathetically argued that no compensation can justifiably be awarded on the ground that such common facilities were not completed at the time when possession of individual units was offered. The counsel for the opposite party no 1 further argued that all basic facilities essential for making the apartment habitable and for enabling the complainants to enjoy its intended use and benefits were duly provided at the time possession was handed over and only the luxury amenities such as the club and related facilities which were handed over marginally later than the actual possession of the apartment. The minor delay in providing non-essential facilities cannot be construed as a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no 1. It was also argued that the date of possession must be determined strictly in accordance with the contractual terms FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 46 I of the agreement to sell and not with reference to the completion of any ancillary facilities or amenities.
15. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that the complaints are not maintainable being false and frivolous and the complainants deliberately concealed material facts. The complainants failed to obtain the requisite permission for filing joint complaints. The possession of the respective units was duly delivered to the complainants after obtaining the necessary occupation and partial completion certificates. The maintenance charges have been levied for the upkeep of common areas, security arrangements, open gymnasium facilities, parking areas, elevators, and other amenities. It was also argued that the complaints are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16. We shall first analyze facts appearing from the record. The facts as emerging from the record are not substantially in dispute. It is an admitted position that complainants have purchased respective units in the opposite party no 1 project. The opposite party no 1 issued No Dues Certificates to each of the complainants reflecting that the opposite party no 1 has received full and final payment in respect of the units and no dues are outstanding towards the opposite party no 1. It is also not in dispute that the complainants are in possession of their respective unit. The complainants have preferred the present complaints on account of several grievances arising out of the conduct of the opposite party no
1. The complainants are primarily aggrieved by the delay on the part of the opposite party no 1 in delivering possession of their respective unit within the stipulated time and further possession was offered in incomplete development of basic amenities as promised in the brochure and the agreements remaining absent or deficient. The complainants have also taken exception to the arbitrary and unilateral increase in the area of the respective units affected by the opposite party no 1. The complaints were also aggrieved by carrying out of construction work on adjoining towers during night hours as well as defects in the construction work particularly in the parking areas. The complainants were not FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 47 FT 'A satisfied with the levy of maintenance charges by the opposite party no 1 in the absence of essential amenities including the club house, sewerage treatment plant, tennis court, cricket pitch, large swimming pool and nursery school cum creche, which were specifically represented and promised to the complainants being buyers.
17. It appears that none of the contesting party is satisfied with the impugned order and challenged the impugned order on various ground as detailed herein above. The respective counsels also advanced arguments to substantiate their respective grounds to challenge the impugned order. The opposite parties no 1 & 2 have challenged the jurisdiction of the State Commission by stating that the State Commission does not have territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The State Commission in respect of territorial jurisdiction after referring section 47 (4) of the Act opined 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 and Section 47 (4) (c) further clarifies that the State Commission within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action, wholly or in part arises, shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint. The State Commission observed that the agreements in present case have been executed at Chandigarh wherein the given addresses of the opposite party no 1 were of the Chandigarh and these addresses were also found on various letters like allotment letters, tripartite agreements, brochures of the project in question, No Dues Certificates issued by opposite party no.l to the complainants, offer of possession letters in respect of respective units. The State Commission also observed that the maintenance charges were to be deposited by the complainants against their respective units in Axis Bank, Chandigarh which reflected that the opposite parties no.l and 2 were actually and voluntarily carrying on business from their branch office at Chandigarh and were working for gain, where a part of cause of action, have arisen. The State Commission accordingly held that FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 48
-
Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints because a part of cause of action accrued in favour of the complainants at Chandigarh and rejected the objection pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission. We are of opinion that the State Commission has extensively deal with this issue and after appropriate appreciation of relevant law decided this objection correctly. There is no force in the arguments advanced by the counsels for the opposite parties no 1 & 2 that the State Commission was lacking territorial jurisdiction and cannot be accepted.
17.1 The opposite parties no 1 & 2 also raised objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The perusal of impugned order reflects that said issue has been extensively dealt with by the State Commission and there is no reason to interfere in said finding of the State Commission in impugned order. The opposite parties no 1 & 2 also raised issue that the present complaints are not maintainable due to incorporation of arbitration clause in the agreements. The State Commission after referring decision of this Commission in Aftab Singh V Emaar MGF Land Limited & another, Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015 decided on 13.07.2017 wherein it was held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements/contracts between the buyer and the Builder cannot circumscribe jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The State Commission further referred that Civil appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 and Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder before the Supreme Court were also stood dismissed vide orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018 respectively. Accordingly the State Commission in impugned order rejected said objection pertaining to arbitration clause. We are also of the opinion that the State Commission has taken a correct view in this regard and as such there is no justification to interfere in such finding of the State Commission. The argument advanced by the counsels for the opposite parties no 1 & 2 is lacking merit. FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 49 17.2 The State Commission in impugned order also addressed the objection taken by opposite party no.2 that applications seeking permission to file joint complaints have not been filed and as such said complaints are liable to be dismissed. The State Commission after referring decision of this Commission delivered in Karnail Singh & others V M/s. Emerald Lands (India) Private Limited & others, Consumer Case No. 2809 of 2018 decided on 02 Jan 2019 held that the complainants were not required to file any application seeking permission to file joint complaints. The argument advanced by the counsel for the opposite party no 2 is without any basis.
18. The another issue which needs consideration and dealt by the State Commission extensively is that whether the amenities mentioned in the brochure including the club house, sewerage treatment plant, tennis court, cricket pitch, large swimming pool, nursery school cum creche and other such facilities have been suitably provided at the project to the complainants. It necessitated appropriate examination of the legal significance of a builder's brochure. It is accepted legal proposition that a brochure issued by a builder forms an integral part of the promise upon which the contract between the parties is founded. The representations and assurances contained therein constitute the very foundation of the agreement, and as such, they cannot be overridden, superseded, or rendered ineffective by any subsequent contractual document. This is so because it is precisely on the basis of such alluring and attractive representations made in the brochure that a prospective buyer is induced to enter into a contract for the purchase of a unit or plot in the said project. This legal position has been unequivocally affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Others V DLF Southern Homes Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019 decided on 24.08.2020. The Supreme Court held that since the amenities as represented and promised in the brochure had not been made available at the project site as such the respondents therein were entitled to compensation in the FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 50 form of interest, as well as the benefit of the penalty clause as stipulated under the agreement. The State Commission in the impugned order also made appropriate observation about legal relevance and significance of the brochure supported by the case law. We express our agreement'with the observations made by the State Commission about brochure. The State Commission after referring the brochure also illustrated the amenities and facilities promised to be provided to the complainants by the opposite party no 1.
18.1 The opposite party no 1 in reply admitted that the club and the facilities surrounding the tower in question remained under construction and are yet to be completed which is sufficient to establish that the basic amenities .promised by the opposite party no 1 in brochure were not made available at the project site at the time of offering and handing over possession of the respective units to the complainants. The opposite party no 1 has provided certain facilities such as intercom services, convex mirrors in the basement, parking provisions, children's parks, sandpits, benches, and common areas as evidenced from the photographs placed on record but it is equally evident that the club house, tennis court, cricket pitch, large swimming pool, and nursery school cum creche have not yet been constructed or made available to the residents i.e. the complainants. Although the complainants have taken possession of their respective unit but acceptance of possession shall not in any manner extinguish or diminish right of the complainants to seek compensation for the delay in delivery of possession and absolve the opposite party from its obligation to provide the amenities which were expressly promised to the complainants. The State Commission rightly held that the opposite parties no 1 & 2 by not providing all basic amenities as promised in the brochure and agreement and forcing the complainants to pay huge maintenance charges indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient and negligent in providing service. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no 1 is also corroborated by a clear stipulation as per Condition No. l(1.2)(v) of the Agreement dated FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 51 r 19.02.2018 which expressly provide that the total price of the apartment includes a pro-rata share in the common area along with one covered car parking and said covered car parking was made available to the complainants only after an unreasonable and inordinate delay following the delivery of possession of their respective units. Accordingly we are of opinion that failure to provide all basic amenities as expressly promised in the brochure and the agreement and by simultaneously compelling the complainants to pay substantial maintenance charges, the opposite party no 1 and opposite party no 2 have engaged in unfair trade practices and have been manifestly deficient and negligent in providing the services. We have appropriately considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the opposite party no 1 regarding the liability of the opposite party no 1 to provide facilities as per brochure which are meritless.
19. The next issue which needs consideration is that whether opposite party no. 1 is entitled to levy full maintenance charges in the absence of all basic amenities and facilities at the project site. The opposite party no 1 has admittedly provided certain facilities at the project site such as intercom services, convex mirrors in the basement, parking facilities, children's parks, sand pits, benches, and common areas but several other amenities such as the club house, tennis court, cricket pitch, large swimming pool, and nursery school cum creche have not yet been constructed or made available to the complainants at the project site. The State Commission also taking note of above deficiencies and principles of fair and equity directed the opposite party no. 1 for refund of 30% of the maintenance charges to meet the ends of justice. We are also of considered opinion that directing the opposite party no 1 to refund 30% of the maintenance charges collected from all the complainants would meet the ends of justice. We also express our agreement with the finding of the State Commission that the opposite party no.l be directed to refund 30% of the maintenance charges to the complainants. The complainants are entitled to a FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 52 .V refund of 30% of the maintenance charges paid by them to opposite party no 2 calculated from the respective dates of payment thereof and the opposite party no 1 shall be entitled to levy maintenance charges only to the extent of 70% of the applicable amount until all the basic amenities and facilities as specifically mentioned in the brochure as well as the agreement are duly provided at the project site. The State Commission has taken a correct view regarding entitlement of the opposite parties no 1 & 2 to levy maintenance charges as mentioned and discussed herein above.
19.1 The State Commission also held that in the event the opposite party no 2 has collected any maintenance charges from the complainants prior to the issuance of the Occupation Certificate(s) by the competent authorities, the opposite party no 2 shall be liable to refund the same to the complainants. The State Commission to support this observation relied on decision delivered by this Commission in Gurumurthy Thisgarajan and Anita Rao and others V VDB Whitefield Development Private Limited (VDB Whitefield), Consumer Complaint No. 763 of 2020, decided on 25.01.2022, wherein it was categorically held that builders are obligated to refrain from coercing flat owners into paying maintenance charges prior to the obtainment of the Occupation Certificate from the competent civic authorities. We are in agreement with said finding of the State Commission. The arguments advanced by the counsels for the opposite parties no 1 & 2 are considered in right perspective but do not provide much help to the contentions of the opposite parties no 1 & 2.
20. The next issue which needs our consideration is that whether the opposite party no 1 is entitled to increase the area of the unit(s) at the time of offering possession. It is evident from perusal of Condition No. 1.6 of the Agreement that the parties had mutually agreed to confer upon the opposite party no 1 the right to make additions and alterations to the extent of 5% in the sanctioned plans, layout plans, and specifications without the requirement of obtaining FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 53 L prior written consent from the allottees. The State Commission after scrutinizing each case noticed that the increase in the area of the respective units with the exception of CC No. 09 of 2022 ranges between 4% to 6% and as such falls within the average permissible limit as contemplated under Clause 1.6 of the Agreement. The State Commission in impugned order rightly rejected plea of the complainants that they are entitled to get refund of the differential amount paid towards increase in area of the respective units. We after considering facts and circumstances of the case are of opinion that the contention of the complainants regarding their entitlement for refund of the differential amount paid towards the increase in the area of the respective units is not acceptable being devoid of merit. It is pertinent to mention that the State Commission in respect of increase in area subject matter of CC No.09 of 2022 took a different view as there was excess area to the extent of 16% and for this no written consent was obtained by opposite party no.l. The State Commission accordingly opined that before charging for any excess area over the limits mentioned in the agreement, the builder is bound to share the actual reason for increase in the super area based on the comparison of the originally approved buildings and finally approved buildings so that the concerned allottee may know the change in the finally approved lay-out and areas of common spaces and the originally approved lay-out and areas. The State Commission accordingly directed the opposite party no.l to refund the amount received from the complainant in said complaint for increase in area, over and above 5% of the original area of the unit in CC No.09 of 2022. The State Commission to support said finding referred decision of this Commission delivered in Pawan Gupta V Experion Developers Private Limited, Consumer Complaint bearing no.286 of 2018 decided on 26 August, 2020 wherein it was held that by increasing the area at the final stage of possession without any justification is an unfair trade practice on the part of the builder/developer. We are of opinion that the State Commission has taken a right view in this regard. We are convinced by the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainants that they are not liable FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 54 to pay charges for increased area.
21. The another issue which needs consideration and also deliberated by the State Commission in the impugned order is regarding entitlement of the complainants for compensation due to delay in delivery of the possession of respective units by the opposite party no 1. The State Commission opined that there was delay on the part of opposite party no. 1 in delivering possession of the respective units to the complainants. The State Commission also considered the contention of the opposite parties no 1 & 2 regarding cause of delay in completing the project due to force majeure caused by COVID-19 and the competent Authorities extended the period of completion of the project vide circular dated 28.10.2020 and as such construction and development was stopped for certain period. The State ■ Commission after taking note that the competent Authorities extended the period of completion of the project for 6 months because of COVID-19 opined that the opposite party no.l is entitled to get benefit of 6 months from the actual date of possession of the units to the complainants. However the State Commission observed that possession of the units in question was not offered to the complainants even by the extended period of 6 months and thereafter opined that the opposite party no.l was deficient in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice by not offering and delivering possession of the units by the promised dates or even within the extended period of 6 months due to COVID-19. The State Commission also relied on decision of the Supreme Court delivered in DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited V Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 wherein order of this Commission awarding interest @9% per annum for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the units was upheld besides other decisions and held that grant of interest @9% p.a. to the complainants on the entire amount deposited by them from the due dates of possession onwards keeping in mind the immunity of 6 months on account of the lock down till delivery of actual FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 55 possession thereof would meet the ends of justice. We after considering relevant decisions and reasoning given by the State Commission are of opinion that the State Commission has rightly granted interest @ 9% per annum on delayed compensation. The details regarding the delivery of the possession to the different complainant along with other particulars has been mentioned in para 3 of the impugned Order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission also opined that if opposite party no.l has paid interest to the concerned banks/financial institutions under subvention scheme as per the tripartite agreement(s) but this will not affect liability of the opposite party no 1 to pay delay compensation to the complainants. The argument of the counsel for the opposite party no 1 that the complainants are not entitled for delayed compensation is without any legal and factual force hence rejected.
22. The State Commission in impugned order also dealt with other objections as taken by the opposite parties no 1 & 2. It is objected that the complainants have not impleaded financial institution/bank as the complainants have availed housing loan from the bank/financial institutions and as such the complaints be dismissed. The State Commission rightly rejected said objection by observing that the opposite parties no.l and 2 have failed to clarify as to what prejudice has been caused to them particularly when the complainants are in possession of their respective units and not seeking refund of amount paid. The opposite party no 2 further raised objection that present complaints involved complicated question of facts and law which cannot be adjudicated by this Commission under summary proceedings and the complainants should be relegated to the civil court. The State Commission correctly observed that the present complaints are disputes related to delay in delivery of possession; non provision of basic amenities at the project site; charging of full maintenance charges in the absence of complete basic amenities and defects of leakage in parking areas which amount to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties no.l and 2.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.s 56 ■V 22.1 The State Commission in impugned order also rejected the objections that the complaints are bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and after giving cogent reasons rightly rejected these objections. It was noted that the opposite parties no.l and 2 have failed to convince as to what prejudice has been caused to them, if opposite party no.3 has been impleaded as necessary party to these complaints. It was also contended by the opposite party no 2 that the opposite party no.2 is a different legal entity as such separate complaints were required to be filed by the complainants. The State Commission after having considered said objection was not in agreement with said objection and also referred clause 11.2 of the agreement which mandated that the complainants were to sign the maintenance agreement with opposite party no.l or such maintenance agency as designated by opposite party no.l only. The State Commission rightly rejected this objection in light of various clauses of the agreement and opined that cause of action arose to the complainants against opposite parties no.l and 2 jointly qua their respective units. The State Commission also dealt with extensively other issued raised by the opposite parties no 1 & 2 such as water leakage and flooding in parking area, construction activities during night hours, clubbing of project under one RERA number and stoppage of construction of additional tower at the project site etc. The State Commission has dealt with these objections extensively and there is no justification to interfere in these findings of the State Commission.
23. We after considering rival contentions of the contesting parties and arguments advanced on their behalf in appropriate prospective are of considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is a well- reasoned and was passed after due appreciation of the facts and law. The impugned order does not call for any interference of this Commission. The present appeals (total 33 First Appeals) involving similar questions of law and facts are dismissed being devoid of merits and the directions issued by the State Commission are upheld. The opposite party no 1 and opposite party no 2 shall FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 57 comply with the said directions within 45 days from the date of this order. The pending application if any also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH )
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/- i
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
MEMBER
MS/SSB/B-3/Reserved
t
FIRST APPEAL No. 1070 OF 2023 along with 32 connected F.A.S 58