State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Arjun Kkr Developers Ltd. vs Sh. Rajeev Bhasin on 15 December, 2025
FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 31.01.2024
Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 73/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
1. M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED PERSON,
OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, SHOPPING ARCADE,
HOTEL CONNAUGHT, 37,
SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
ALSO AT:
ROORKEE - HARIDWAR HIGHWAY,
ADJACENT ROORKEE ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
ROORKEE (UTTARAKHAND).
2. MR. RAMESH KUMAR KAKKAR,
DIRECTOR OF M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPER LTD.,
S/O. HARI RAM KAKKAR,
R/O E-603, GREATER KAILASH-2,
NEW DELHI-110048.
(Through: Mr. Aman Singh Bakshi and Mr. Prakhar Dixit, Advocates)
...Appellants
VERSUS
MR. RAJEEV BHASIN,
S/O LATE MR. S. N. BHASIN,
R/O H. NO. 933, 3RD FLOOR,
DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110009.
(Through: Mr. Salim Ahmed Khan, Advocate)
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 11
FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Aman Singh Bakshi and Mr. Prakhar Dixit, counsel for the
Appellant, E-mail: [email protected].
Respondent in person.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12of the Consumer Protection Act (in short CP Act) against Opposite Parties (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services.
2. Briefly states the facts of the case are that the complainant booked a residential plot measuring 300 sq. yards in the ARJUN CITY Scheme of OP at Roorkee, Uttaranchal vide application No. ACR/01-33 and paid a sum of Rs.2,13,750/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) in cash on 05.07.2006. The second installment for a sum of Rs. 1,28,250/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) was paid in cash on 22.10.2007. The third installment for a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand) was paid through cheque bearing No.882867, dated 07.04.2007, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce and hence a total sum of Rs.5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand) was paid.
3. It is further alleged that the opposite party/respondent allotted a plot bearing No. H-131 in favour of the complainant in Arjun City, Roorkee, Uttranchal on the basis of draw, measuring 300 sq. yards, vide letter No. AHPL/Admn/Estate/07(08).
4. The OP company later on reduced the size of the plot to 250 sq. yards instead of 300 sq. yards, and the rate was fixed @ Rs.2921/- (Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty One) DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 per sq. yards and the total cost was Rs.6,60,263/- (Rupees Six Lakh Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Three).
5. It is further stated that despite receiving huge amount from the complainant, the opposite party/respondents intentionally and deliberately did not develop the said township and failed to handover the possession of the plot to the complainant. it is also alleged that at the time of registration/booking of the plot the respondents assured the complainant that the possession of the developed plot shall be handed over to the complainant that the possession of the developed plot shall be handed over to the complainant within a period of 9 months from the booking/registration of the abovesaid plot. That the complainant has faced a great mental and physical tortures, harassments, mental pain and agony and financial loss due to illegal and unwarranted acts and activities of the respondents.
6. It is also alleged that there is a deficiency in the service of the respondents, as the respondents have not developed the abovesaid township and failed to deliver the possession of the developed plot within a period of 9 months from the date of registration and also failed to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant, hence the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only).
7. It is further alleged that the complainant served a legal notice upon the respondent No.2 on 21.04.2018 through Jail Superintendent Jail No.4, Tihar Jail, New Delhi but despite service respondents neither gave reply nor returned the consideration amount of Rs.5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation. It is alleged that this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint.
8. It is prayed that respondent be directed to handover the possession of plot in the aforesaid township area measuring 250 sq. yards or return the consideration amount of Rs.5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand) alongwith interest @ DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 24% per annum till realization, with damages of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) for mental torture, pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) as litigation charges.
9. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP. OP entered appearance on 05.03.2020 and sought time to file written statement. On the date of hearing of 12.03.2020 counsel for OP again sought time to file written statement. Vide order dated 05.01.2023. as none has appeared for OP, OP was proceeded exparte.
10. Complainant filed his evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint. Complainant relied upon the payment receipts, allotment letter, legal notice."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 19.05.2023, whereby it held as under:
"11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the evidence and material on record carefully.
12. Complainant had moved an application for amendment of Para 9 and the prayer clause (a) (b), the same are allowed as they do not change the nature of the case.
13. From the unrebutted evidence of complainant, it has been proved that complainant booked a plot in the project of OP. The complainant had relied upon the letter of allotment and copies of payment receipts of Rs.5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand), legal notice.
14. It was contended on the behalf of the complainant that OP was deficient in providing its services. It was also submitted that complainant had paid Rs.5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand) but OP failed to deliver the property within 9 months from the date of booking. As regard deficiency in services, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. V. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. 2020(3) RCR Civil 544 that the failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated time frame, amounts to deficiency.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
15. It was also held in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 2 1994(1) SCC 243 by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a person hires the services of a builder, or a contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and the same is for a consideration, it is a "service" as defined by Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation.
16. It is to be noted Section 2 (47) of the Consumer Protection Act, defines 'unfair trade practices' in the following words:
"unfair trade practices" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice" and includes any of the practices enumerated therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in above case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.k. Gupta, 1994(1) SCC 342, that when possession is not handed over within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.
17. It is also pertinent to note Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. Vs. Trevor D'Lima and Ors.2018(5) SCC 442 that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat and they are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation.
18. We are further of the view that the cause of action being the continuing one as the amount advanced by complainant was not refunded neither possession of the plot was handed over to him, the complaint is within the period of limitation.
19. We thus, hold that OP/ Arjun KKR Developers Limited was guilty of deficiency in services. We accordingly direct OP/Arjun KKR Developers Limited to refund the amount Rs.5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization within a period of 4 weeks from the date DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 of receipt of order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till realization. We also award Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) as compensation for mental agony caused to complainant and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Fie Thousand) as cost of litigation.
A copy of this order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal contending that the District Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction as the plot in question is situated in Roorkee. Further, the Appellant has submitted that the Complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed the Reply to Appeal, denying all the submissions and contents of the Appellant, and submitted that there is no error on the part of the District Commission in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.
5. The Appellant has failed to file the Written Arguments despite multiple reminders.
6. Written Arguments on behalf of the Respondent are on record, wherein the contents of the Reply to Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Respondent has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. K. Modi vs. K. N. Modi as reported in 3 SCC 573 in support of his case.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
7. Additional Written Arguments on behalf of the Respondent are on record, wherein the contents of the Written Arguments and Reply to Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Respondent has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i. Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta as reported in 1994 (1) SCC 243 ii. Sankar Dastidar vs. Shrimati Banjula Dastidar & Anr. as reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 514 iii. M/s. Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. vs. Trevor D'Lima & Ors.
as decided on 12.03.2018 iv. Vijayendra Deogan vs. Jai Prakash Associate as decided on 09.01.2024
8. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel who appeared on behalf of the parties.
9. The first question before us is whether the present Complaint falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
10.To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
"17. Jurisdiction of State Commission.-
(2) 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 DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 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."
11.Analysis of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that clause 17(2) of the Act provides the extent of territorial jurisdiction, wherein it has been provided that the Commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain cases where Opposite Party 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 the cause of action arose.
12. Having discussed the statutory position, the facts of the present case reflect that the address of the office of the Respondent is at 1st Floor, Shopping Arcade, Hotel Connaught, 37, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001. Since the aforesaid address falls within the territory of Delhi, this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present Appeal.
13.The last question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in considering that the Complaint filed before the District Commission is beyond the period of limitation.
14.To deal with this question, we deem it necessary to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
"24A. Limitation Period.-
(1) The District Forum, 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 in DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
15.Analysis of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that a complaint shall be admitted if it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
16.Further we deem it necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in Anthony H. Silva Vs. Hermonie Mary Salazar as decided on 10.01.2018 wherein it was held that:
"12. The next issue for consideration is whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant/OP has stated that the agreement between the parties was entered in the year 1987 and according to the same, the property was to be provided to the complainant within a period of 3 years. However, it is their own version that they offered the possession of the property to the complainant in or around the year 1994 only, meaning thereby that they failed to take action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is also the case of the OP that they provided flats having built-up area of 950 sq. ft. each to the land owners at a different locality in lieu of built-up area of 1700 sq. ft. each to be provided under the agreement dated 07.11.87. The allegations levelled by the complainant, therefore, that the OP failed to provide her a flat, having area of 1700 sq. ft. as promised, is true. This would, therefore, be a case of continuing cause of action till the flat is provided to the complainant as per the agreement between the DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 parties. Even if the complainant failed to file the consumer complaint within a period of 2 years as prescribed under section 24A of the Act, she cannot be debarred from filing the same after the expiry of the said period, as she cannot be denied the offer of flat in terms of the agreement. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the OP that the complaint was barred by limitation, as it is a case of continuing cause of action."
17.From the aforesaid dicta, it is clear that a complaint cannot be barred by limitation even if the consumer failed to file the complaint within a period of 2 years as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the District Commission has splendidly held that the cause of action is a continuing one.
18.Additionally, since the Appellant has failed to hand over the possession of the plot in question, and has also failed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,13,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirteen Thousand Only) advanced by the Respondent towards the said plot, it is clear that the cause of action is not limited to the date of handing over the possession of the plot to the Respondent. Therefore, the submission of the Appellant that the complaint of the Respondent before the District Commission is barred by limitation is answered in the negative.
19.In view of the foregoing, we agree with the reasons given by the District Commission and do not find reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi), 'M' Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 in Consumer Complaint No. 276 of 2018.
20.Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 11 FA/73/2024 M/S. ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. VS. MR. RAJEEV BHASIN D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
21.Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
22.The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
23.File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On: 15.12.2025 LR-DK DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 11