State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bartholomew John Dsouza/ Kavita Dsouza ... vs M/S Greentech Housing & Country Homes ... on 21 January, 2026
C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026
BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 06.10.2020
Date of hearing: 20.08.2025
Date of Decision: 21.01.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 236/2020
IN THE MATTER OF
1. BARTHOLOMEW JOHN DSOUZA/
KAVITA DSOUZA,
B-1, SECOND FLOOR, DIPLOMATIC HOMES,
KH-128, BAMNOLI, SECTOR-28, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110077.
2. T SURESH KUMAR/A. LATHA,
B-1, FIRST FLOOR, DIPLOMATIC HOMES,
KH-128, BAMNOLI, SECTOR-28, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110077.
3. SAURABH YADAV/AKLESH YADAV,
B-1, FIRST FLOOR, DIPLOMATIC HOMES,
KH-128, BAMNOLI, SECTOR-28, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110077.
4. GOPAL BHATT/GEETA KANDPAL,
B-2, THIRD FLOOR, DIPLOMATIC HOMES,
KH-128, BAMNOLI, SECTOR-28, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110077.
5. SHREYA SINGH,
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 11
C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026
BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
B-2, FIRST FLOOR, DIPLOMATIC HOMES,
KH-128, BAMNOLI, SECTOR-28, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110077.
6. AJAY KHANNA,
B-2, GROUND FLOOR, DIPLOMATIC HOMES,
KH-128, BAMNOLI, SECTOR-28, DWARKA,
DELHI - 110077.
(Through: Bhusan & Assocaites)
...Complainants
VERSUS
1. M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY
HOMES PVT. LTD.,
2. SHASHI KATYAL,
BOTH AT:
B-43, F/F, SHANKAR GARDEN, NAJAFGARH ROAD,
VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI - 110018.
[Through: Mr. Deepank Yadav, Advocate]
... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Savyasachi Rawat, counsel for the Complainants.
None for the OP No.1
Mr. Shashi Katyal for OP No. 2 in person
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 11
C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026
BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainants before this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:
1. Reimburse expenses of Rs 7,34,998 [Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Eight only] attributed to the deficiencies in performances and Services provisioned by Opposite Party and now therefore borne by resident complainants towards health, safety and security of the building, its occupants.
For the past four years, the residents, in the absence of the above facilities and had to bear the cost of repair/replacement of sewerage pipe lines, earthing, window ledges, repair/ re-carpeting weather proof concrete roof in B Block, etc. The aforesaid amount, as described in Annexure 20 be remitted to RWA SBI bank account for upkeep of B-Block.
2. Complete and handover all the facilities as mentioned, listed in order of priorities at Annexure 21 and provided in the Building Specifications to the satisfaction of Complainants.
3. To hand over the Completion certificate to the Complainants.
4. It is humbly prayed that a principal compensation of Rs. 6,11,220 [In words Rupees Six Lakhs Eleven Thousand Two hundred Twenty only] plus compounded annual DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
interest 18% [effective period from date of registration until date of payment] per apartment justified vide Annexure 22 be given to each of the aforesaid Complainants for the construction cost fraudulently charged for non-existent built-up area of [1152 SFT (Registered Sale) - 846.39 (Actual certified)] = (-)305.61 Sq Ft.
5. Any directions made by the Hon'ble Forum which it regards necessary for the carriage of justice..
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants purchased 3 BHK apartments in the residential complex namely Diplomatic Homes of the Opposite Party, situated at Khasra No. 128, Bamnoli, Sector-28, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077, for a total consideration of Rs.3,42,40,000/-. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party showed the sanctioned building plan annexed with the Builder Buyer Agreement and falsely represented that the project would be a fully developed gated apartment complex with CCTV surveillance, power backup, proper water and electricity connections and other basic amenities. However, none of the promised facilities were provided, including municipal water connection, proper electrical supply lines in B-Block, operational CCTV system and functional power backup, despite repeated requests by the Complainants. Consequently, an RWA was formed by the Complainants to collectively address the common deficiencies. As a result, the RWA made several written representations to the registered office of the Opposite Party but the Opposite Parties failed to rectified the aforesaid deficiencies.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 also agreed to provide the Complainants with apartments admeasuring approximately 1400 sq. ft. as per the Builder DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Buyer Agreement. However, the apartments actually provided measure only 1152 sq. ft. as per the registered Sale Deeds, resulting in a substantial shortfall of about 27% from the registered area and nearly 40% from the area promised under the Buyer Agreement. Moreover, no Completion Certificate has been obtained or provided till date, in clear violation of the terms of the Buyer Agreement.
4. Further the Complainant No.4, despite early registration of his Sale Deed, was handed over delayed possession of Apartment No. B-2 with incomplete and inadequate facilities. The Opposite Party also used substandard construction material throughout the project and failed to complete essential civil works. The Opposite Party assured the Complainants that pending works would be completed upon sale of other apartments; however, the said assurance was never honoured despite sale of multiple units. The Opposite Party left the basement and parking area in a raw, unsafe and dilapidated condition, with poor drainage and faulty construction resulting in seepage. The façade of the building has deteriorated rapidly due to inferior material, leading to plaster peeling and water seepage in the basement. More so, the defective terrace tiling and inadequate weatherproofing further caused seepage in walls and columns. Faulty structural planning, including inadequate concrete base for overhead water tanks, improper sewer and drainage slope, and absence of earthing, posed serious safety hazards, compelling the Complainants to incur substantial expenses collectively through the RWA for rectification.
5. Additionally, the Opposite Party failed to arrange MCD water connection, common BSES meter boxes, proper plumbing layout, window ledges, and lift licence. The use of substandard materials in staircases and railings further reflects gross negligence. The Opposite DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Party remained evasive and failed to rectify the deficiencies. Hence, the Complainants have approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
6. The Opposite Parties contested the present complaint and raised preliminary objections regarding its maintainability. The counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the Complainants admittedly took possession of their respective apartments during the period 2015-2016, whereas the present complaint has been filed in November 2020 i.e. beyond the statutory period of two years. He further submitted that although Complainant No.5 purchased an apartment in the year 2019, the other Complainants cannot rely upon the said purchase to bring the entire complaint within the period of limitation. He also submitted that the Complainants do not fall within the definition of "consumer" as the apartments were purchased for resale purposes, which amounts to a commercial purpose.
7. The counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that this commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction adjudicate the present matter as the value of the claims in respect of alleged deficiency in service has been assessed at approx. Rs.44 lakhs and, if the sale consideration of the builder floors amounting to approximately Rs.3.5 crores is taken into account, the present complaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. He further submitted that there is no common interest or common grievance among the Complainants, as the apartments were purchased at different stages and under different plans. He also submitted that Complainants No.1, 2 and 4 purchased builder floors without roof rights under construction linked plans and actively participated in inspections during the construction stage and verified the building and relevant documents. On the other hand, Complainants DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
No.3, 5 and 6 purchased ready-to-move builder floors after completion of construction, after conducting due diligence and verifying all aspects of the building. He further submitted that the Sale Deeds specifically record that the Complainants shall share the cost of the booster pump, overhead water tank and electrical connections and fittings with the other occupants of the building; therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 had no obligation in respect thereof.
8. Lastly, he submitted that the Complainants conceal the material facts as the Complainants themselves carried out illegal demolition and unauthorized construction by making structural changes on the terrace, including casting of columns and laying RCC slabs. More so, the Complainants demolished and reconstructed the lift room, damaged the parking ramp, illegally extracted groundwater through pumps, stored water tanks on the terrace causing damage to the roof and seepage, shifted the tanks from their original position and connected water pipelines in a haphazard manner leading to leakage and damage. As a result, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.
9. The Complainants have filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
10. The Complainants have filed their written arguments and reiterated the allegations made in the present complaint. They have further placed reliance upon the following judgments:
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026
BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
(a) Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment titled Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103;
(b) Hon'ble NCDRC judgment titled K.B. Magadum v.
Balashivappasasalatti & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC.
11. The Opposite Parties have also filed their written arguments and relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Piyush Goel & Ors. v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors., 2018 (2) CPJ 687;
(b) Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545;
(c) M.P. Housing Board v. Anil Kumar Khiwani, (2005) 10 SCC 796;
(d) State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149;
(e) Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114.
12. We have perused the material available on record.
13. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the preliminary issues involved in the present matter.
14. The question for consideration before us is whether the present complaint is barred by limitation?
15. The Opposite Parties have contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation. In order to examine the said objection, it is necessary to refer to the provisions relating to limitation as contained under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
"69. Limitation period.--
(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified therein, if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
16. Perusing the above statutory provision of law, it is clear that the complaint shall be filed before the State Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
17. In the present case, it is clear from the record that possession of the respective apartments was handed over and Sale Deeds were executed in favour of the Complainants on the following dates:
Complainants Date of execution of sale deed/ Possession Complainant no.1 17.06.2016 Complainant no.2 25.02.2015 Complainant no.3 16.12.2016 Complainant no.4 15.09.2015 Complainant no.6 25.10.2016
18. However, the Complainants (including Complainant no.5 who purchased she apartment in year 2019) filed the present complaint filed on 06.10.2020 i.e., beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of execution of Sale Deeds and delivery of possession to the Complainants. As a result, it is clear that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the same has been filed nearly four years from the date sale deed.
19. Further, it is pertinent to mention that we have also gone through the merits of the case, wherein it is noted that the Complainants had formed an RWA and admittedly collected money among themselves and started carrying out construction or repair works in the building as per their own DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
understanding, as a result of which the condition of the building further deteriorated. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainants ought to have approached this Commission within a period of two years from the date when they first noticed the alleged defects and shortcomings in their respective apartments and common areas. At this belated stage, the Complainants cannot seek reimbursement of the amounts allegedly incurred towards repair or replacement of sewerage pipelines, window ledges, repair or re- carpeting of the weather-proof concrete roof in B-Block, and other such works.
20. Furthermore, it is noted that Complainant No.5 purchased the apartment in the year 2019 and filed the present complaint jointly with the other Complainants on 06.10.2020, which is within the period of limitation. However, the Complainant No.5 cannot take advantage of the earlier grievances of the other the Complainants. Moreover, Complainant No.5 purchased the apartment with full knowledge of the existing condition of the building, including the fact that certain works were being carried out by the residents themselves. We fail to find anything on record to show that the Complainant No.5 has raised any distinct or personal deficiency specific in her apartment which arose after the date of his purchase.
21. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the Complainant No.5 does not share any common cause of action with the other Complainants. Nevertheless, if the Complainant No.5 is aggrieved by any independent deficiency specific to her apartment, she shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy by filing a separate complaint confined to his own grievance in accordance with law. Accordingly, the total time spent by the Complainant No.5 in prosecuting the proceedings DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 11 C/236/2020 D.O.D.: 21.01.2026 BARTHOLOMEV JOHN DSOUZA AND ORS. VS M/S GREENTECH HOUSING & COUNTRY HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
before this Commission shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation.
22. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the present complaint as barred by limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
23. No order as to costs.
24. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
25. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
26. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
21.01.2026 LR-ZA DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 11