State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Inderjeet Kaur W/O. Mr. Arvind Saini vs M/S Ambika Realcon Developers Pvt. Ltd. ... on 19 December, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Complaint No. : 111 of 2025
Date of Institution : 19.11.2025
Date of Decision : 19.12.2025
Inderjeet Kaur Wife of Mr. Arvind Saini, Resident of Apartment
No.LP/TRIOMPHE/B- 204, Second Floor, Tower No. 8 (Triomphe
Tower-B), "LA PARISIAN", Sector 66-B, IT City, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali),
Punjab, through her authorized representative/true and lawful
attorney/husband namely Mr. Arvind Saini, aged about 42 years, son
of Sh. Gian Chand, resident of B 204 Triomphe B, Ambika La Parisian,
Sector 66-B, Mohali, Aero City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab- 140306
...Complainant
VERSUS
1] M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Private Limited through its
Directors/Principal Officers Corporate Office: SCO 18-19, 1st
Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009
2] M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Private Limited Through its
Directors/Principal Officers Registered Office: Building No. 251,
Glatt Building, 2nd Floor, Behind Modi Flour Mill, Okhla, Phase
III, New Delhi 110020
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:-
Sh. Shakti Paul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Heard Learned Counsel for the complainant at the preliminary stage on the point of maintainability.2
2] The grievance of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the opposite aprties have installed 'AMBIKA' sign board on the rooftop of Tower-B of their project La Parisian, SAs Nagar, Punjab wherein her apartment bearing No.LP/TRIOMPHE/B-204 is situated at 8 th Floor, to which signboard the large congregation of pigeons are attracted, causing continuous droppings, filth, feathers on the complainant's terrace rendering it unusable. It has been averred that the pigeons droppings and feathers can trigger severe, chronic and often irreversible respiratory disease such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, asthma and lung fibrosis. It has further been averred in the complaint that the act of installing a commercial signboard on a residential tower thereby knowingly sacrificing the health, safety and property rights of a resident for the purpose of corporate branding, is a clear instance of an unfair trade practice. It has further been stated that large congregations of pigeons are a grave social concern and a public nuisance likely to spread diseases and endanger human life. Further grievance is that despite servicing legal notice dated 22.08.2025 upon the opposite parties, the said signboard has not been removed or shifted from its installed location.
3] A careful consideration of the averments made in the complaint reveals that the grievance raised by the complainant is wholly misconceived and does not give rise to any legally enforceable cause of action. The allegations sought to be projected as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice are, in fact, premised on conjectures, presumptions and natural phenomena beyond the control of the opposite parties. Firstly, no cause of action accrues to the complainant merely because pigeons have allegedly perched upon or around the impugned signage leading it to her apartment. It is a matter of common knowledge, recognized both scientifically and judicially, that avian movement is an entirely natural, spontaneous and unpredictable occurrence, over which no human agency let alone a 3 residential developer can exercise absolute control. Pigeons are free- flying birds capable of alighting on rooftops, ledges, balconies, railings, parapets or any elevated surface irrespective of whether a signboard exists. The photographs of the tower and the balcony placed on record by the complainant herself unmistakably demonstrate that the balconies of the apartment are open in design and equipped with standard railings. This architectural feature, which is common to high-rise residential buildings, inherently permits free access to birds including pigeons. Consequently, even in the absence of the impugned signboard, pigeons can naturally perch on the balcony railings, parapets, ledges or any other exposed projection of the building. It is, therefore, evident that the presence of pigeons in and around the complainant's balcony is a natural and unavoidable phenomenon arising out of the open-balcony structure and not a circumstance attributable to any act or omission of the opposite parties. The complainant's own photographic evidence negates the assertion that the signboard has uniquely attracted pigeons to her premises. Birds, by their very nature, alight on any elevated or convenient resting point and the open balcony railings provide such accessible perch irrespective of the signage installed on the rooftop. Accordingly, the complainant's attempt to establish a causal nexus between the installation of the signboard and the alleged pigeon congregation stands weakened by her own documents. The natural propensity of pigeons to perch on open railings cannot be imputed to the opposite parties nor can it form the basis of alleging deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Thus, the attribution of pigeon congregation solely to the presence of the 'AMBIKA' signboard is speculative, unsubstantiated and devoid of empirical support.
4] Secondly, the complainant's averment that the installation of a brand signboard on the rooftop of Tower-B constitutes an unfair trade practice is without substance. It is well-settled that a developer 4 is entitled to place project-related or corporate signage on its property, particularly on common areas, so long as the same does not contravene any statutory prohibition or the contractual terms agreed upon by the parties. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any statutory violation, contractual breach or legal embargo that would render the installation of the signage illegal or impermissible. In the absence of such proof, the mere inconvenience alleged cannot metamorphose into an unfair trade practice.
5] Thirdly, the complainant's apprehensions pertaining to potential health hazards are generalized assertions unsupported by any medical evidence. The alleged risk of respiratory ailments from pigeon droppings is a remote and speculative possibility, not a consequence directly attributable to the opposite parties. The law requires a proximate nexus between the act complained of and the harm alleged. Here, the causal chain is entirely missing. The complainant has not placed on record any expert report, inspection findings or medical documentation substantiating that the specific signage installed by the opposite parties has created a hazardous environment or has resulted in any actual harm. Moreover, nuisance claims founded on natural animal behaviour cannot be fastened upon a private developer except where intentional acts demonstrably attract or harbour wildlife. No such intention or facilitation is evident here. The complainant has not shown that the opposite parties created an artificial habitat, feeding source or enclosure that would uniquely attract pigeons. Roofing structures, projections, ledges and signboards are routinely used by birds for perching, which is a natural incident of urban living and cannot be construed as a deficiency in service.
6] Furthermore, the issuance of a legal notice and the opposite parties' refusal to remove the signage does not strengthen the complainant's case, as compliance with a demand notice is warranted only when the demand is legally valid. In the present case, the 5 demand itself is untenable, arbitrary and unsupported by any contractual, statutory or municipal mandate.
7] In view of the above, the complaint is bereft of merit, premised on natural phenomena, unsupported by evidence and fails to disclose any act or omission on the part of the opposite parties constituting deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the complainant deserve to be rejected in toto.
8] For the reasons recorded above, the complaint being devoid of any substances stands dismissed at the preliminary stage with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach an appropriate Court for redressal of her grievances.
9] Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this complaint stand disposed of accordingly.
10] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
11] File be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced 19.12.2025 (PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER *Ad* 6