State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Babu Lal Meena vs M/S Terra Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 12 March, 2026
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026
BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 18.11.2019
Date of Hearing: 19.12.2025
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
COMPLAINT NO.1018/2019
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. BABU LAL MEENA
S/O MR. SISPAL MEENA
R/O 553 SHRI AWAS (LNT) APARTMENT,
SECTOR 18 B,DWARKA, NEWDELHI
...Complainant
(Through : Mr. Mukesh Gahlot, Advocate
E-mail: [email protected]
M. No. 9711978868)
VERSUS
1. M/S TERRA REALCON PVT. LTD.
AT:B-05-252, NAZAR SINGH PLACE,
SANT NAGAR, EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI - 110065
ALSO AT: 5th FLOOR, PLOT NO. 18, SECTOR-44,
GURGAON, HARYANA-122003
REGD. OFFICE:
D-74, 2nd FLOOR,
HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI-110016
...Opposite Party No. 1
(Through: Mr. Sumit Nandwani, Advocate
E-mail: [email protected]
M. No. 7011541912)
2. MR. MAHENDER ARORA (DIRECTOR)
M/S TERRA REALCON PVT.LTD.
(deleted from the array of parties
vide order dated 27.11.2019)
...Opposite Party No. 2
ALLOWED Page 1 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026
BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
3. MR. SUNIL KUMAR (DIRECTOR)
M/S TERRA REALCON PVT.LTD.
(deleted from the array of parties
vide order dated 27.11.2019)
...Opposite Party No. 2
4. M/S CANOPY NIRMANS PVT. LTD.
REGD. OFFICE:
D-74, 2nd FLOOR,
HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI-110016
CORPORATE OFFICE:
118, VIPUL AGORA,
MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD,
GURGAON, HARYANA-122002
...Opposite Party No. 4
(Through: Mr. Sumit Nandwani, Advocate
E-mail: [email protected]
M. No. 7011541912)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Mukesh Gahlot, counsel for the complainant.
Mr. H. Srivastava, counsel for the opposite party.
PER : HON'BLE MS. PINKI, PRESIDING MEMBER
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that vide Registration Form dated 20.10.2012, the Complainant through Opposite Party No. 4 (M/s Canopy Nirmans Pvt. Ltd. herein) had applied for allotment of 2BHK residential flat in the upcoming project of the Opposite Party No. 1, namely, 'Terra Castle' Alwar Express Highway, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The Complainant had paid an advance booking ALLOWED Page 2 of 16 CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 4 vide cheque bearing no. 555516 dated 20.10.2012 drawn on Punjab National Bank. Thereafter, vide Allotment Letter dated 16.04.2013, the Opposite Party No. 4 allotted him the flat bearing no. 405, Block-G, Tower-Windsor admeasuring 975 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project of the Opposite Party No. 1. Thereafter, the 'Flat Buyers Agreement' dated 11.12.2013 was executed between the Complainant & Opposite Party No. 4 for the aforesaid unit. The total sale price of the said flat was Rs.23,80,450/-. As per clause 14 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party No. 4 had agreed to deliver the possession of the said flat within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of agreement. The Complainant had raised a loan of Rs.18,76,590/- from Punjab National Bank for making the payment of the flat and a Tripartite Agreement dated 02.07.2014 was executed between the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 4&Punjab National Bank.
2. It is the case of Complainant that as per Buyers Agreement, the Opposite Party No. 4 was bound to deliver the possession of said flat within 36 months i.e. by 10.12.2016. However, he had paid a total sum of Rs.30,34,117/- to the Opposite Party No. 4 and Punjab National Bank by 11.08.2018. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 4 ALLOWED Page 3 of 16 CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
neither raised any demand letter nor given the possession of flat. The Opposite Party never intimated him about the reason for delay in offering the possession. The Opposite Party No. 4 violated the provisions of Section 55 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. There was inordinate delay on the part of the Opposite Party No. 4. The Opposite Party No. 4 charged a heavy penal interest of 24% from him on the delayed payments. The prolonged and unexplained delay in handing over possession constitutes a clear breach of the Buyer's Agreement and amounts to deficiency in service.
3. It is further the case of Complainant that the delay was attributable to circumstances within the control of the developer and not to valid force majeure events. The project remained far behind schedule, yet the developer continued sending pressure-filled demand letters, even for amounts already paid. He complied with all payment demands and raised concerns again the final payment in December 2017, requesting early completion of project. However, the Opposite Party No. 4 intimidated, misled and humiliated him and also made derogatory remarks about his financial status and further threatened not to hand over possession or refund the deposit. The Opposite Party No. 4 also warned him not to contact them further and he would be informed only when the project was ready. ALLOWED Page 4 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
4. It is further the case of Complainant that he faced the severe mental, emotional, social, and financial hardship due to the delayed possession of the flat from 2012 to 2019. The unfulfilled promise shattered the family's dream of owning a modest 2BHK flat in Bhiwadi. He also issued legal notice dated 16.10.2019 upon the Opposite Parties and requested for refund of his entire money alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. along with compensation. But, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to reply to the same.
5. Thus, the Complainant was left with no other option but to file the present complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
6. However, notice of the complaint was issued to the only Opposite Party No. 1 & 4 and the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 27.11.2019.
7. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 4 filed their written statements along with application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the complaint, wherein they had raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present case. It was contended that as the property in question was situated at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further contended that the Complainant does not ALLOWED Page 5 of 16 CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts. The complaint is false, frivolous and has been filed against the Opposite Parties as arm twisting tactic to extort money. The Complainant was defaulter in making the timely payments. The Complainant has deliberately and intentionally not adhere to the payment schedule. The construction of the project was completed in all respect.
8. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, rebutting the averments made in the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties and recapitulated the facts narrated by him in his complaint.
9. The Complainant has filed evidence by way of his own affidavit.
10. The Opposite Parties had also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Nagender Verma, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No. 1.
11. The Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have filed their respective written arguments.
12. We have carefully perused the material available on record as well as written submissions filed by both the parties.
13. First, of all, we would like to deal with the preliminary objections taken by the Opposite Parties.
ALLOWED Page 6 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
14. The first question for adjudication before us is "whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint."
15. To meet out this contention of the Opposite Parties, we would like to refer Section 17 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." ALLOWED Page 7 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
16. In Rohit Srivastava Vs. Paramount Villas Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198, it was inter-alia held as under:
"Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that the order cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No 1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2) (a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In the light of the said provision, in our view, it was open to the Complainant to choose the Forum to file the Complaint, which on the second occasion he decided to file before the State Commission at Delhi."
ALLOWED Page 8 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
17. In the present case, the registered office of the Opposite Parties is situated at D-74, 2nd Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 as per memo of parties as well as receipt dated 12.08.2014 (annexed at page 67 of complaint). Since, the registered office of Opposite Parties is situated in Delhi, we are of the considered view that this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant and this contention of the Opposite Parties is answered in negative.
18. The second question for adjudication before us is "whether the Complainant is 'Consumer'?"
19. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
"Section 2(1)(d) Consumer" means any person who- i. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does ALLOWED Page 9 of 16 CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD. not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or ii. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose] Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment;"
20. In the present case, the Complainant has averred that he is government servant and had booked the residential flat in the said project of the Opposite Parties by obtaining the housing loan from the Punjab National Bank. He availed the services of the Opposite ALLOWED Page 10 of 16 CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
Parties by booking the flat in question. However, the Opposite Parties failed to handover the possession of flat with the stipulated time. Further, the Opposite Parties did not place on record any material which shows that the Complainant does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is 'Consumer' as defined in the Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties is also answered in negative.
21. The last question for consideration is "whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in providing their services to the Complainant or not."
22. The expression 'Deficiency of Service' has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be ALLOWED Page 11 of 16 CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation." ALLOWED Page 12 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
23. Now, coming to the facts of present case, it is clear that the Complainants had booked Flat bearing no. 405, Block-G, Tower- Windsor admeasuring 975 sq. ft. in the project, namely, 'Terra Castle' of the Opposite Parties as evidenced by the 'Flat Buyers Agreement' dated 11.12.2013 (annexed from Page 29 to 51 of complaint) executed between the parties. It is worth noting that the total sale price of the flat in question was Rs.23,80,450/-. It is further worth noting that as per clause 14 of the 'Flat Buyers Agreement' dated 11.12.2013, the Opposite Party was duty bound to hand over the possession of the said flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement i.e. by January 2017.
24. A perusal of loan statement (annexed at page 62 & 64 of complaint) reveals that the Complainant had obtained the housing loan for sum of Rs.18,76,590/- from Punjab National Bank @ 10.62% floating rate of interest. Further, the Complainant has totally repaid the loan by May 2019, along with heavy penal interest of Rs.7,20,529/-.
25. It is further worth noting that the Complainant has also placed on record detailed summary of payments made to the Opposite Parties, which reveals that the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.23,13,588/- to the Opposite Parties and a sum of Rs.7,20,529/- to the Punjab National Bank towards interest on housing loan. ALLOWED Page 13 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
26. It is noteworthy that it was for the Opposite Party to obtain sanction of building plans and other approvals. Further, the Opposite Party did not place on record any material to prove that construction of the project could not be completed on account of force majeure and non-availability of building materials or workforce or other circumstances, which were beyond the control of Opposite Party.
27. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant had paid 100% consideration amount of the flat to the Opposite Parties that too way back in the year 2017. However, till date the Opposite Parties did not offer the possession of the flat to the Complainant. Further, the Opposite Parties did not place on record any Occupancy/Completion Certificate in respect of the flat in question.
28. It is settled law that the Complainant cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of his hard earned money, which he had spent in order to purchase the property in question. (Ref: Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima reported at (2018) 5 SCC 442)
29. Consequently, it is held that the Opposite Parties are deficient in providing their services to the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the money deposited by him with the Opposite Party as well as interest paid to the Punjab National Bank. ALLOWED Page 14 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
30. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.
31. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Parties to refund the interest amount of Rs.7,20,529/- to the Complainant.
32. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.23,13,588/- to the Complainant along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Parties till 12.03.2026 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Parties pay the entire amount on or before 11.05.2026;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Parties fail to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 11.05.2026, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Parties till the actual realization of the amount.
33. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of: ALLOWED Page 15 of 16
CC/1018/2019 D.O.D.12.03.2026 BABU LAL MEENA VS M/S TERRA REALCOM PVT. LTD.
A. Rs.1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainants; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.
34. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.
35. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
36. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
37. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 12.03.2026 ALLOWED Page 16 of 16