State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Kumar vs Allwin Infrastructure And Another on 11 February, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022
Date of Institution : 16.12.2022
Reserved on : 09.12.2025
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
Sunil Kumar aged about 50 years s/o Murari Lal, Resident of House
No.235, Mehandi Mohalla, Kankar Khera, Meerut, Uttar Pardesh,
PIN-250001, Aadhar No.2300-7564-0600 working as Assistant
Engineer, Military Engineering Services, posted at Kamptee,
Nagpur, Maharashtra.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Allwin Infrastructure Limited, Plot 361, Phase-2, Industrial
Area, Panchkula, Haryana through its Director Varinder Kumar
Singla (Email: [email protected]).
2. State Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch, 50778, RACPC,
Chandigarh, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab.
Email:[email protected]
.....Opposite Parties
Complaint U/s 47 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member Present:-
For the Complainant : Sh. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Sh. R.S.Rawat, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Sh. Kuldip Singh, Advocate
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 2 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
Initially, the Complaint came up hearing before the Additional Bench consisting of Sh. H.P.S. Mahal, Judicial Member and Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member. Both the Members had passed two different orders. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the third Member, i.e. Ms. Simarjot Kaur who had passed totally a different order. However, no majority order was passed. By considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case was ordered to be heard by the Principal Bench comprising of myself along with
2 Members namely Sh. Vishav Kant Garg and Ms. Simarjot Kaur.
2. The Complainant has filed the present Complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, "the Act") with the averments that he wanted to buy a residential house for his family, as such, he booked a 3BHK Apartment measuring '949.15 Sq.feet' Carpet Area in the project of OP No.1, i.e. "El Spazia", International Airport Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar. Initially he paid sum of Rs.5,74,350/- on different dates, i.e. from 21.06.2019 to 25.11.2019 as booking amount. Apartment No.C-902, 9th Floor in the aforesaid project was allotted to him vide allotment letter 01.12.2019. The total sale consideration of the said Apartment was Rs.57,52,330/-. After obtaining permission from OP No.1 to mortgage the allotted Apartment, he had taken loan amounting to Rs.45,94,000/- from OP No.2 Bank, which was repayable in equated monthly installment of Rs.41,034/-. A tripartite agreement was also executed between the parties. Initially, an amount of Rs.42,87,376/- Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 3 was released by OP No.2 Bank to OP No.1. The Complainant had been paying monthly installment of Rs.41,034/- to OP No.2 Bank regularly. The Complainant has already paid a total sum of Rs.51,67,105/- towards the said Apartment. The demand was made on 20.09.2022 and thereafter the allotment was cancelled on 15.11.2022. In the month of September 2022, he was transferred at an extremely sensitive posting, where use of internet was very limited. Due to the restriction on internet usage and the Complainant's preoccupation with his son's admission in Engineering College, he was not aware of demand letter dated 20.09.2022 for an amount of Rs.2,89,220/- which was sent to the Complainant at his Meerut Address. The Complainant was also not having knowledge of reminders due to aforesaid reasons but despite that OP No.1 had sent intimation of cancellation letter dated 09.11.2022. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.11.2022, OP No.1 had cancelled the allotment letter dated 01.12.2019. Despite requests of the Complainant, his allotment was not revoked. The Complainant has prayed for following reliefs :-
i) To set aside the cancellation letter dated 15.11.2022 (C-21) issued by opposite party No.1 to the Complainant vide which allotment of Apartment No.C-902, block C in E1 Spazia made in favour of the Complainant on 01.12.2019 has been cancelled;
ii) To direct OP No.1 to accept the payment of Rs.2,89,220/- from the Complainant;
Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 4
iii) to direct OP No.2 not to give NOC to OP No.1, while acting on cancellation letter dated 15.11.2022;
iv) to direct OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, tension and agony suffered by the Complainant;
v) to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation;
vi) to stay the operation and effect of the cancellation letter dated 15.11.2022 (Ex.C-21);
vii) Any other relief which may deem fit.
3. In support of his claim, the Complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit along with the copies of documents i.e. copies of the payment receipts Ex.C-1 & C-2, Copy of the Allotment letter dated 01.12.2019 Ex.C-3, Copy of the Tripartite Agreement and arrangement letter dated 13.01.2020 Ex.C-4 & C-5, the Copy of the statement of account Ex.C-6, Copies of receipts Ex.C-7 to C-15, the Copy of the demand letter dated 20.09.2022 Ex.C-16, the Copy of the reminders Ex.C-17 to C-20, the Copy of the intimation of cancellation letter dated 09.11.2022 Ex.C-21, the Copy of the letters dated 15.11.2022 and 01.12.2022 Ex.C-22 & C-23, the Copy of the letter dated 04.12.2022 Ex.C-24, the Copy of the email dated 05.12.2022 and the posting order dated 21.09.2022 Ex.C-25 & C-26, the Copy of the representation dated 05.12.2022 Ex. C-27 and the Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 5 Copies of email dated 08.12.2022 and email dated 09.12.2022 Ex. C-28 & Ex.C-29.
4. Upon issuing notices, the OPs No.1 & 2 had appeared through their Counsel and filed separate written versions.
5. OP No.1 has raised certain preliminary objections that the Complaint has been filed on the basis of vague, misconceived notions, baseless assumption and the same is not maintainable. The Complainant cannot be considered as a 'Consumer' as the said Apartment was purchased to earn profits from the real estate; the Complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and he has concealed certain material facts and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Complaint. OP No.1 has denied the averments made in the Complaint. OP No.1 has admitted that an amount of Rs.51,67,105/- has been paid by Complainant, however, the total price of the Unit was Rs.57,52,330/- + GST. The Complainant has failed to pay the installments regularly even after sending a number of reminders to him. The demand letter dated 20.09.2022 as well as other reminders issued from time to time as well as the final cancellation letter dated 01.12.2022 have been duly delivered at the address of the Complainant and also on his email Id. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. In support of his averments, OP No.1 has tendered into evidence the Affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Director, along with the Copies of documents i.e. demand letters along with the reminders Ex.R-1 to Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 6 R-22, the Copy of summary of payment and calculation of interest Ex.R-23 to R-26 and also the Email dated 09.12.2022 as Ex.R-27.
6. OP No.2-Bank has also raised the preliminary objections that the Complaint is not maintainable against the Bank as there is no "deficiency in service" on its part. On merits, also OP No.2 has stated that OP No.2 Bank has provided the loan to the Complainant for purchasing the Apartment in the aforesaid project of OP No.1 and a Tripartite Agreement was also executed between the parties. The Complainant has been paying the installments regularly as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. OP No.2-Bank had not shared any detail with the OP No.1, as per instructions of the Complainant. OP No.2-Bank has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint qua to him. In support of his version, OP No.2-Bank has filed Affidavit of Mousam Pal, Chief Manager along with the copies of the documents i.e. loan application and letter of arrangement Ex.D-1 & D-2 and statement of account Ex.D-3.
7. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj Advocate, learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant had purchased said Apartment for total sale consideration of Rs.57,52,330/-, out of which he had already paid a sum of Rs.51,67,105/- to OP No.1 from his own pocket and after availing the Housing Loan from OP No.2-Bank to the tune of Rs.45,94,000/-. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainant has been regularly paying the installments towards the said Housing Loan to OP No.2 Bank. Learned Counsel has further submitted that Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 7 the Complainant was posted at GE (P) No.2, Meerut from where he was transferred to GE Kamptee as AGE (Contract) vide office order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Director General, Military Engineer Services and he had joined at Kamptee, Nagpur (Maharashtra) on 23.09.2022. Learned Counsel has also submitted that OP No.1 had issued demand letter dated 20.09.2022 and had sent it at Meerut address of the Complainant but he could not pay the installment as he was not available there at that time due to his transfer. OP No.1 had also sent reminders and emails to the Complainant in this regard but due to restriction on internet usage at Kamptee, Nagpur (Maharashtra), the place of posting of the Complainant and due to preoccupation with his son's admission in Engineering College, he had no knowledge of the demand letter dated 20.09.2022 and due to aforesaid circumstances, he could not pay the same well in time. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the OP No.1 had cancelled the allotment of the said Apartment vide letter dated 15.11.2022 by relying upon the Clause 9.3 of Agreement in an arbitrary manner. Further, the argument of the Ld. Counsel is that the cancellation of the allotment was done in a haste manner, despite the fact that the Complainant had already paid a huge amount.
8. Mr. R.S. Rawat Advocate, learned Counsel for the OP No.1, has submitted that OP No.1 had provided sufficient time and opportunities to the Complainant to make the payment of Rs.2,89,220/-, as per agreement dated 01.12.2019, but he had failed Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 8 to pay the same well in time and OP No.1 had left with no option except to cancel the allotment of Apartment as it could not wait for longer period for recovery of the outstanding dues. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainant had not responded to the mails, telephonic conversation and had made excuses in paying the amount. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainant had no intention to pay the outstanding amount as he had not given any instructions to the OP No.2-Bank to release the due amount to OP No.1. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in the personal meeting, the Complainant had not provided any timeline for clearing the outstanding dues of Rs.2,89,220/- and OP No.1 has given sufficiently long time to the Complainant to clear the outstanding demand along with interest but he had not paid the same. The Complainant was in habit of delaying the payment due towards him. The time was essence of the Agreement and the Complainant was well aware of the same. Learned Counsel has further submitted that due to the force majeure circumstances, the period of delivery for possession was extended from December, 2022 to June 2023 due to Covid-19. OP No.1 has rightly cancelled the allotment of the unit and had informed the Complainant regarding refund of the amount due to him as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The learned Counsel has further argued on the similar lines as mentioned in the written reply and has prayed for dismissal of the present Complaint. The reason of cancellation of the Apartment was due to non-payment by the Complainant and also default in paying amount. The Complainant had only responded to Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 9 the demand letters when his allotment was cancelled. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgments of cases, i.e. "DLF Homes, Panchkula Vs. Bhagwati Narula" 2019 (SCC online) NCDRC 1066, "Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Zuari Industries Limited" 2010(8) SCC 327, "IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna" 2021(3) SCC 2041, "Kailash Nath Associates Vs. DDA" 2015 (4) SCC 136, "Wg. Cdr. Arifuf Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Home Prvt. Ltd." 2020 (16) SCC 512 and "Poineer Urbans Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan" 2019(5) SCC 725 in support of his arguments.
9. Sh. Kuldeep Singh Advocate, learned Counsel for OP No.2-Bank has submitted that OP No.2 had provided housing loan to the Complainant and the Complainant has been paying the installments regularly. Learned Counsel has submitted that there is no 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP No.2-Bank.
10. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Complainant, OP No.1 as well as OP No.2-Bank and have also carefully perused the written arguments submitted by the parties as well as the relevant documents/evidence available on the file.
11. The main dispute is between the Complainant and OP No.1-Builder regarding non-payment of amount, cancellation of Apartment and Agreement for Sale. As per the version of the OP Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 10 No.2-Bank, he had advanced the housing loan to the Complainant and the Complainant has been regularly paying the installments to the Bank.
12. OP No.1 has raised first objection that the Complainant does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer', on the grounds that he purchased the apartment/unit only for speculation purposes. However, the OP No.1 has failed to prove his version by way of leading any cogent evidence that the Complainant was having property/business and he was dealing in sale/purchase of property for investment/commercial purpose. The Hon'ble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision of case in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, wherein it has been held that the Complainants are 'Consumers' as the Appellant has failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the Respondents/Complainants or any of them has been dealing in the sale/purchase of the properties. In absence of any such evidence in support of version of OP No.1 and in view of the ratio of aforesaid judgment, the Complainant is held to be 'Consumer', under the Act.
13. Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased said Apartment in the project of OP No.1 and had paid a total sum of Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 11 Rs.51,67,105/-, from his own pocket and after availing the loan from OP No.2 to the tune of Rs.45,94,000/-, against the total sale consideration of Rs.57,52,330/- plus GST. Allotment letter Ex.C-3 allotting apartment No.C-902, 9th Floor having carpet area of 949.15 Sq.ft. was issued to the Complainant on 01.12.2019 by OP No.1. An Agreement for Sale was executed between the parties on 01.12.2019. The Complainant had opted for construction linked payment plan and (Schedule-C). The same is reproduced as under:-
SCHEDULE 'C'-PAYMENT PLAN OPTED BY THE ALLOTTEE Construction Linked Payment Plan (CLP) Sr. Installment schedule of Booked Payment Percentage(%) No. Floor 1 On booking Rs. 2,00,000/-
2 Within 15 days of Booking 10% of BSP(including booking amount) 3 On Start of Construction 15% of BSP 4 On casting of 1st floor 7.5% of BSP 5 On casting of 3rd floor 7.5% of BSP 6 On casting of 5th floor 7.5% of BSP 7 On casting of 7th floor 7.5% of BSP 8 On casting of 9th floor 7.5% of BSP 9 On casting of 11th floor 7.5% of BSP 10 On casing of 14th floor 7.5% of BSP 11 On Start of Brick Work 7.5% of BSP 12 On start of Internal Plaster 5% of BSP 13 On start of Flooring & External Plaster 5% of BSP 14 On offer of possession 5% of BSP + (PLC if applicable) + Applicable Taxes/other charges Admittedly, the Complainant is working as Assistant Engineer, Quality Surveying and Contracts, Military Engineering Services, India Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 12 Army (Govt. of India). Vide Office Order No.MES/47/2022, dated 21.09.2022 (Ex.C-25), he was transferred from the place of his posting, i.e. GE (P) No.2, Meerut to GE Kamptee as AGE (Contract) and he had joined at Kamptee, Nagpur (Maharashtra) on 23.09.2022. OP No.1 has failed to rebut this version of the Complainant and transfer letter Ex.C-25 by way of leading any cogent evidence. As per the version of OP No.1, the demand letter dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure R-1) was issued to the Complainant on his address at Meerut (UP) and had also sent emails in this regard but no response was there. From perusal of postal receipt, it is apparent that said demand letter was sent on 21.09.2022 and it was delivered at Meerut on 24.09.2022, as per tracking report, which is part of Annexure R-1. On perusal of above, it is apparent that Complainant had joined at his new place of posting at Kamptee Nagpur (Maharashtra) on 23.09.2022 and said letter was delivered at Meerut. The reminder letters dated 04.10.2022, 18.10.2022 and 30.10.2022 were also sent at the same address (Annexure R-17, to R-19) to the Complainant. Thereafter, the intimation of cancellation letter dated 09.11.2022 (Annexure R-20) was also sent at the same address to the Complainant. Cancellation letter dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure R-21) and letter dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure R-22), cancelling the Apartment of the Complainant was also sent on the same address. As per the version of the Complainant, he had never received said demand letter and reminders as his place of posting was at Kamptee, Nagpur (Maharashtra). As per the version of the Complainant, on reaching to his home i.e. at Meerut after getting Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 13 leave from authorities, he came to know about said demand letter and reminders as well as cancellation of allotment letter of said Apartment. On perusal of above, it is apparent that when the said demand letters, reminders and cancellation letters were sent on Complainant's address at Meerut, at that time he was at his place of posting, i.e. Kamptee, Nagpur (Maharashtra). After coming to know about the same, the Complainant had discussed the matter with representative of OP No.1 telephonically. The Complainant had also sent email dated 05.12.2022 mentioning his difficulties about non-
payment of demand and had requested OP No.1 to reconsider the case on humanitarian grounds as he was ready to pay the demand amount of Rs.2,89,220/-. In support of his request, the Complainant had also sent his transfer letter to OP No.1. OP No.1 had failed to rebut the document of transfer letter of the Complainant on record. The Complainant had also requested that the place of posting of the Complainant being the sensitive area as use of internet was strictly prohibited. Due to that reason, emails could not be delivered/received by him but despite the request of the Complainant, OP No.1 had rejected the request vide email dated 09.12.2022. OP No.1 has not produced on record any evidence to controvert the version of the Complainant that the internet usage was available to him at the place of his posting. The Complainant had also requested that he was busy with the admission process of his son in the month of October-November, 2022 in Government Medical College, Ghazipur, UP as his son had got cracked NEET Exam. Meaning thereby, he was not at Meerut. OP No.1 has also Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 14 failed to rebut this version of the Complainant. After discussion with OP No.1, the Complainant had got prepared DD of Rs.2,89,220/- dated 13.12.2022 in favour of the OP No.1, but OP No.1 had not accepted the same. As per version of OP No.1, the Complainant had made excuses in making the payment. In support of his version, no document has been placed on record wherein the Complainant had made excuses in paying the amount and had denied to pay the demand as raised by OP No.1. Further, OP No.1 has pleaded that in the personal meeting, the Complainant had not provided any time limit in clearing the outstanding due, as mentioned in para No.20 of his written statement. It is pertinent to mention here that said meeting was held on 12.12.2022 as is clear from perusal of last line of para No.18 of the written statement filed by OP No.1. However, on perusal of record, it is apparent that the Complainant had got prepared the Demand Draft dated 13.12.2022 of Rs.2,89,220/- in favour of OP No.1 for clearing the outstanding amount, which shows that after attending the meeting with OP No.1, he got prepared the same to clear the outstanding due. As such, we find no force in the pleading of OP No.1 that the Complainant had not provided any timeline in the meeting for clearing the outstanding due. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the request of the Complainant was genuine but OP No.1 had rejected the same in arbitrary manner. Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 15
Moreover, OP No.1 has relied upon Clause 9.3 of Agreement for Sale dated 01.12.2019 while cancelling the allotment of Apartment. The relevant part of Clause 9.3 is reproduced as under :-
9.3 The Allottee shall be considered under a condition of default, on the occurrence of the following events -
(i) In case the Allottee fails to make payment for 03 consecutive demands made by the Promoter as per the Payment Plan annexed hereto, despite having been issued notice in that regard, the allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount at the rate specified in the Rules.
(ii) In case of Default by Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond 02 consecutive months after notice from the Promoter in this regard, the Promoter shall cancel the allotment of the Unit in favour of the Allottee and refund the amount money paid to him by the allottee by deducting 10% of the total consideration amount and interest liabilities and this Agreement shall thereupon stand terminated."
We have carefully perused the aforesaid clause. In case we consider the case of OP No.1, he had issued demand notice dated 20.09.2022, which was delivered on 24.09.2022, as per tracking report (Annexure R-1). Clause 9.3.(ii) provides that OP No.1 could Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 16 have cancelled the allotment in case of default beyond the consecutive period of 2 months after notice. It is admitted by OP No.1 that demand letter dated 20.09.2022 was delivered on 24.09.2022. As per aforesaid clause, after the expiry of the period of two months OP No.1 was entitled to cancel the allotment of said property. In the case in hand, the period was to be expired after 24.11.2022 but OP No.1 had cancelled the allotment of Apartment No.C-902 of the Complainant on 15.11.2022 without waiting period of two months as agreed between the parties. In view of above, it is apparent that the OP No.1 himself had not complied with aforesaid Clause 9.3 and had cancelled the allotment of unit in arbitrary manner. Thereafter, OP No.1 had realized his mistake and to correct the same he had issued another cancellation letter dated 01.12.2022. Thereafter, OP No.1 had also issued letter dated 04.12.2022 by cancelling the allotment-agreement of Apartment No.C-902 executed between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid act and conduct of OP No.1 shows that he was adamant to cancel the allotment of Apartment of the Complainant to grab 10% amount out of the total sale consideration and further to sell the same to another person, whereas the Complainant had been regularly paying the loan installments to OP No.2-Bank. The aforesaid act and conduct of OP No.1 amount to be case of 'deficiency in service'. The version of the Complainant appears to be genuine that he was having no knowledge about the demand notice as well as reminders due to the reasons as mentioned above. OP No.1 could have considered the genuine Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 17 request of the Complainant and could have asked for the amount along with interest as per Clause 9.3(1) of the Agreement for Sale, but OP No.1 had remained adamant to refund the amount to the Complainant after deducting 10% amount out of total consideration. Moreover, in the present case, major part of the amount of Rs.51,67,105/- has been received by OP No.1 from the Complainant.
14. By taking into consideration of the reasons as mentioned above we are of the considered view that cancellation of allotment of a unit was due to small outstanding amount and without considering the genuine request of the allottee and too after receiving the major part of the amount is a case of 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the builder. As such, the cancellation letters dated 15.11.2022, 01.12.2022 and 04.12.2022 are liable to be set aside.
15. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the present case, admittedly the possession was to be delivered in the month of December, 2022 and OP No.1 had raised a plea that the possession could not be delivered to the allottees within time. OP No.1 has also pleaded in his reply that the time was extended by 6 months due to Covid-19 as it was beyond the control of OP No.1 due to force majeure circumstances. On one hand, OP No.1 had pleaded that the situation was not under his control due to Covid-19 and he could not give possession of the Unit. On the other hand, OP No.1 had rejected the genuine request of the Complainant. Moreover, OP No.1 had failed to rebut the contentions of the Complainant. Furthermore, Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 18 OP No.1/builder could not unilaterally cancel the allotment of a Unit simply by taking shelter of the clause in the Agreement for a meager/small amount of pending dues, especially after receipt of the major part of the total sale consideration. The judgments relied upon by OP No.1 are not applicable in the present case.
16. In the present case, OP No.2-Bank had provided house loan facility to the Complainant and there is no role of OP No.2 for cancelling the allotment of Apartment of the Complainant. As such the Complaint against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
17. In view of above detailed discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, the Complaint is allowed against OP No.1 and dismissed qua OP No.2-Bank with the following directions :-
i) We hereby set aside the cancellation letter dated 15.11.2022, 01.12.2022 and 04.12.2022 issued by OP No.1.
ii) OP No.1 is directed to accept the amount of Rs.2,89,220/- as mentioned in the demand notice dated 20.09.2022 along with delayed payment interest upto 13.12.2022, the date of demand draft of Rs.2,89,220/- in favour of OP No.1;
iii) OP No.1 is further directed to receive the pending installments without any interest or penalty;Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2022 19
iv) to pay an amount of compensation, i.e. Rs.50,000/- for 'deficiency in service' & 'unfair trade practice' and for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant ;
v) to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
iv) OP No.2 is also directed not to act upon the
instructions of OP No.1 and to return
back/refund the amount, if any, paid by OP No.1 to it after cancellation of the apartment.
This order will be complied with by OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
19. The Complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER February 11, 2026 (MM)