State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sachidanand Prasad Singh vs M/S. Friendlies Estate & Essential Pvt. ... on 11 February, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/476/2016
(Against the Order dated 29th March 2016 in Complaint No. 02/2013 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar)
WITH
NC/IA/3084/2025 (AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE)
NC/IA/11417/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
DR. SACHIDANAND PRASAD SINGH
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O. LATE SRI BRIJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE & POST
AKBARPUR, P.S. HILSA, , DISTRICT-NALANDA, BIHAR
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S. FRIENDLIES ESTATE & ESSENTIAL PVT. LTD. & 3 ORS.
PRESENT ADDRESS - PATLIPUTRA PATH, RAJENDRA NAGAR, , PATNA
SRI VINAY KUMAR SINHA
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O. SRI RAM SARAN SINHA, DIRECTOR, M/S. FRIENDLIES ESTATE
& ESSENTIAL PVT. LTD., PATLIPUTRA PATH, , RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA , BIHAR ,
AJAY KUMAR
PRESENT ADDRESS - DIRECTOR, M/S. FRIENDLIES ESTATE & ESSENTIAL PVT. LTD.,
PATLIPUTRA PATH, , RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA , BIHAR ,
THE MANAGER, HDFC BANK,
PRESENT ADDRESS - TWIN TOWER (HATHWA), 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAAN, ,
PATNA, BIHAR
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. SANJEEV KR. VERMA, ADVOCATE IN FA/476/2016 MR. ABHYANAND SINGH,
ADVOCATE IN FA/681/2016
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MR. VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (VC)
DATED: 11/02/2026
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER These Appeals have been filed against the impugned Orders dated 29.03.2016, 11.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 in Complaint Nos. 02/2013, 19/2013 and 17/2013 respectively, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, vide which, the Complainants were directed to pay additional amounts towards the Flats.
2. The facts and question of law involved in these Appeals are similar in all material particulars. Therefore these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, FA/476/2016 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from the Complaint therein.
3. The factual background, in brief, is that the Opposite Party No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 is the Builder Company, and the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3/ Respondent No. 2 and 3 are its Directors. The land on which the project "Prabha Twin Towers" was developed is family property of the Opposite Party No. 2, who entered into an arrangement with family members for construction of the said Apartment Complex. The Flat booked by the Complainant/Appellant was Flat No. 3-D, 3rd Floor in Block B. Upon being informed that the outer construction was nearly complete and only a few flats remained, the Complainant finalized the said Flat at a cost of Rs. 24,00,000/-, with an estimated Rs. 3-4 lakhs towards additional charges. An Agreement for Sale dated 04.11.2009 was executed and registered, and Rs. 19,00,000/- was paid in instalments, of which Rs. 13,00,000/- was paid directly and Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid via HDFC Bank towards a sanctioned loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It was stipulated in the Agreement that possession would be handed over within two years and that the total price was fixed, with no escalation except for genuine additional charges like parking, transformer, sewage, etc.
4. Despite repeated follow-ups and the passage of over a decade, possession was not handed over, and the Flat remained incomplete with no water, electricity, or toilet facilities. The Builder further demanded Rs. 27,00,000/- in cash beyond the agreed amount and refused to accept the final amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by cheque. The Complainant also received vague, undated Notices from the Opposite Party No.3, threatening arbitrary revision of the Flat's cost, unsubstantiated by the agreement terms. Legal Notices sent by the Complainant on multiple dates went unserved with the remark "nobody available to receive". It was later revealed by HDFC Bank that further loan disbursement was withheld due to litigation between the Builder and a third party, M/s. Blue Heavens Agro Pvt. Ltd., challenging the Builder's right over the property. This was not communicated earlier to the Complainant, and no further demand was raised by the Builder after February 2010.
5. It is the case of the Complainant that there was no Force Majeure or contingency to justify the delay, and under the terms of the Agreement, time extensions could not affect the agreed payment schedule. The Complainant remains willing to pay the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/- and other legitimate charges under the Agreement. Accordingly, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. State Commission, Bihar.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the State Commission failed to appreciate the true import of Clause 3 of the Recitals in the Agreement for Sale dated 04.11.2009, which unequivocally refers to the "total cost" of the Flat as Rs. 24.00 lakhs and makes no reference to any "tentative cost" as erroneously assumed in the impugned Order; That the sum of Rs. 13 lakhs paid by the Appellant prior to the execution of the Agreement was part of this total cost, and not an additional or advance amount liable to adjustment later. Further reliance is placed on Clause 23 of the same Agreement, which delineates the payment schedule and corroborates that Rs. 13.00 lakhs was paid by the Appellant at the time when 65% of the construction work was completed. The Appellant also draws attention to the booking Application submitted along with the initial Rs. 3.00 lakhs, which clearly mentioned the purchase rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq. ft. for a 1380 sq. ft. Flat; That Clause 7 of the Agreement specifically bars any escalation in price beyond what is clearly mentioned therein, and affirms that any extension of time would not alter the agreed payment plan; That no further demand was ever raised by the Respondents after 24.02.2010, and that the entire payment schedule, as per the Agreement, stood complied with. The Appellant asserts that the finding of the State Commission relying on subsequent Sale Deeds executed in 2013 and 2014 for other Flats to hold that the cost of the Appellant's Flat was Rs. 40.60 lakhs is wholly misplaced, as the Appellant's booking was made way back in 2009 when the rate and area stood agreed. Therefore it is contended that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside, and the Complaint allowed in favour of the Appellant along with exemplary costs.
8. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that Clause 20 of the Agreement expressly provided for price revision owing to escalating construction costs. In accordance with this Clause, the Respondent No. 1 informed the Buyer about the revised pricing, but instead of paying the balance, the Appellant initiated a Complaint before the State Commission seeking transfer of the Flat at the earlier tentative price, on payment of only Rs. 5.00 lakhs more and compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The State Commission, after considering the terms of the Agreement and surrounding facts, including Clause 20, held that the Rs. 13.00 lakhs paid earlier was not part of the Rs. 24.00 lakhs mentioned in the Agreement. It was further noted that other similarly situated Buyers had paid higher consideration than what was recorded in their respective Agreements, and on examining the Sale Deeds executed around the relevant time, the State Commission rightly concluded that the prevailing Flat prices were around Rs. 40.00 lakhs. The State Commission, therefore, computed the Flat cost at Rs. 40.60 lakhs and directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 21.60 lakhs to obtain possession. The Respondent No. 1 asserts that this determination was fair and reasonable, fully consistent with the contractual provisions and market realities, especially the right to revise prices due to construction cost escalation; That the Complaint and the present Appeal are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as the Appellant, Mr. Sachidanand Prasad Singh, is not a Consumer under the statute.
9. The central issue in the present batch of Appeals revolves around the legality and justifiability of the enhanced demand raised by the Respondents over and above the agreed consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/- under the registered Agreement for Sale dated 04.11.2009. The Clause 3 of the Recitals, on Page 43 of the Paperbook, clearly records the "total cost" of the Flat as Rs. 24.00 lakhs, with the only permissible additions being limited to specific heads such as car parking, landscaping, generator, transformer, sewerage system and miscellaneous charges. The Clause 7 (on Page 45 of the Paperbook) further reinforces that the Builder shall "not ordinarily claim any escalation in cost" other than what is clearly expressed, and that any extension in time for completion shall have no effect on the payment schedule agreed upon at the time of execution of the Agreement. Furthermore, the Clause 20 (at Page 47 of the Paperbook) stipulates that any cost revision due to exceptional circumstances like escalation in prices of construction material shall only be undertaken in consultation with the Buyer to arrive at an agreed revised price. There is no Clause in the Agreement which either refers to the cost as "tentative" or empowers the Builder to revise it unilaterally at a later stage.
10. We find that the reasoning adopted by the Ld. State Commission, particularly in Para 8(a) of the impugned Order, is flawed in law. The reference to subsequent Sale Deeds executed with other Buyers in 2013-14 to infer the Flat value of Rs. 40.60 lakhs in respect of the Appellants is wholly misplaced and unsustainable. The Appellants' booking and agreement were concluded in 2009, and the contractual price was duly fixed therein. No clause permits retrospective enhancement based on future market value or third-party transactions.
Moreover, the only demand notice allegedly issued by the Respondents (at Pages 54-55 of the Paperbook) is undated, vague, and fails to mention any specific amount payable. It lacks contractual sanctity and cannot form the basis of a valid demand under the Agreement.
11. The conduct of the Respondents in cancelling the allotments of the Appellants in FA/681/2016 and FA/736/2018, despite the status quo Order passed by the State Commission on 07.08.2016, and creating third-party interests in violation of directions, constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The record also shows that there was no formal cancellation of the original allotments, nor any justified refusal of the Appellants' offer to pay the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/-. On the contrary, Legal Notices were gotten issued by the Appellant in FA/476/2016 on 01.06.2012 and 22.06.2012 specifically objected to the escalated demand, and there was an injunction dated 20.05.2016 in his favour by the Civil Court in Patna, Bihar.
12. In light of the above, this Commission is of the view that the Respondents acted in breach of the Agreement for Sale dated 04.11.2009 by raising unwarranted escalated demands and by arbitrarily cancelling the Flat allotments without any legal justification. The contractual Clauses relied upon by the Respondents do not permit unilateral cost enhancement, and no procedure was followed to reach a revised, agreed cost in consultation with the buyers as mandated under Clause 20.
13. Accordingly, these three Appeals stand allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the Ld. State Commission are set aside with the following directions:
a) The Respondents shall register and execute the Sale Deeds at their own cost and give possession to the Appellants of their respective Flats as originally allotted, at the contractually agreed price of -
(i) In FA/476/2016 - Rs. 24,00,000/-, subject to payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
;
(ii) In FA/681/2016 - Rs. 24,00,000/- subject to payment of remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-;
(iii) In FA/736/2016 - Rs. 23,00,000/-, the Respondents shall refund the excess payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the Complainant.
The aforesaid payments/refund shall be adjusted with other agreed charges under the Sale Agreement, along with compensation by way of interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposited amounts from the respective dates of deposit till the execution and registration of the Sale Deed within three months of the date of this Order;
b) In the event that possession is no longer possible due to non-availability of those Flats now, the Respondents shall deliver possession of any similarly situated suitable Apartments in lieu of the original Flats, and in case even such alternative Flats are not available then the Respondents shall refund to the Appellant(s) the entire amounts deposited by the Appellants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the final realisation, within three months from the date of this Order;
c) In the event of the failure to make such payments within the time specified, any outstanding dues will attract interest @ 12% p.a. till final realisation;
d) The Appellants shall also be entitled to litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- each in their respective Appeals.
14. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
..................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESIDING MEMBER ..................
DR. SADHNA SHANKER MEMBER MANJIT KAUR/VM/Court-2/A