State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rupal Dhar Shukla Through Its Gpa Manju ... vs M/S Barnala Builders Through Its ... on 4 May, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.75 of 2025
Date of Institution : 08.10.2025
Date of Reserve : 07.04.2026
Date of Decision : 04.05.2026
Rupal Dhar Shukla, through its General Power of Attorney (GPA) Manju
Shukla, aged 74 years, W/o Sh.Ajay Kumar Shukla, Resident of
H.No.201, Silver City-Main, Tehsil-Derabassi, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar
(Mohali), Punjab-140603. 0
.....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Barnala Builders through its Managing Director/Authorized
Signatory/Partners, Registered Office-opposite McDonalds,
Zirakpur-Ambala Highway, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab-140603.
Email Id: [email protected]
2. M/s My Space Company, through its Managing Director/Authorized
Signatory/Partner, Registered Office at SCO No.4, Hollywood
Height-2, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali,
Punjab.
Email id- [email protected]
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman,
Room Number 205, 2nd Floor, Multi Storey Building, The Mall Road,
Patiala-147001 (near Omaxe Mall, near Shakti Sadan).
Email Id:- [email protected].
4. Municipal Council Zirakpur, through Executive Officer, opposite
Police Station, Zirakpur-140603.
Email Id: [email protected]
CC No.75 of 2025 2
5. Directorate of Punjab Fire and Emergency Services, through its
Director, Department of Local Government, Punjab Municipal
Bhawan, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh-160022.
Email Id:- [email protected] and [email protected].
6. The Chairman, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Phase 2, Sector 54,
SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160055.
Email Id:- [email protected].
......Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 49 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present :-
For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate For OPs No.1&2 : Sh. Arshit Goel, Advocate For OPs No.3&5 : None For OP No.4 : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate For OP No.6 : Sh. A.S.Takkar, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER This order of ours shall dispose off the total 7 (seven) Consumer Complaints i.e. Consumer Complaint No.75 of 2025, Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2025, Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2025, Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2025, Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2025, Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2025 and Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2025, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from Consumer Complaint No.75 of 2025.CC No.75 of 2025 3 CC No.75 of 2025
2. The Complainant-Rupal Dhar has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) through her General Power of Attorney namely Ms.Manju Shukla, under Section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act').
3. The facts of the Complaint as pleaded in the Complaint are that the Complainant was allured by OP No.1 to apply for Hyper Market Spaces measuring 250 Sq.ft. from OP No.1 vide Application dated 16.10.2018 in the project "Maya Garden Magnesia", situated at Singhpura in Tehsil and District Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab. It was pleaded that the Hyper Market Space was solely purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood for herself and her children by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 27.02.2019 for the said space. As per the brochure provided by the OP No.1, the price of the Hyper Market Space for 250 Sq.ft. was Rs.25,49,750/- and as per the ledger and final possession letter provided by the OP No.1, the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.24,75,000/- for said property.
4. It has further been pleaded in the Complaint that as per Clause 5 of the Agreement for Sale dated 27.02.2019, the OP No.1 was under obligation to hand over the unit to the Complainant within specified time as mentioned in the Agreement. The OP No.1 was to obtain Completion Certificate/Occupation Certificate from competent authority before offering the possession as stipulated under Section 2 (zf) of the RERA. Further it has been pleaded that the meaning of Occupancy Certificate is a complete Occupancy Certificate as there is no provision for partial occupancy or completion certificate under any law. As per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for Sale, the OP No.1 was CC No.75 of 2025 4 bound to deliver possession of the Unit on or before September, 2022. It has been averred that since the possession was offered based on Partial Occupancy/Completion Certificate, therefore, only a paper possession was offered by the OP No.1.
5. It has also been mentioned in the Complaint that as per Section 7.4 of the Agreement for Sale, the OP No.1 was under
obligation to hand over all the necessary documents and plans etc. to the Association of allottees after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and handing over of unit to the allottees. However, the OP No.1 had issued Final Possession Letter dated 12.10.2021 for 250 Sq. Ft. Hyper Market Space. The Complainant was left with no alternative but to accept possession of said unit/property. It was accepted under threat/duress. It was done so as it had been stated in Clause 33 (j) of the Agreement for Sale that penal charges would be levied if the allottee failed to take/accept possession. The OP No.1 in Clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter had agreed and promised to execute the Registered sale/Conveyance deed within a period of 45 days. The applicability of Final Possession Letter was subject to certain conditions. However, despite the promise made by the OP No.1, the sale/conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant has not been executed. Since, the Clause (d) has not been fulfilled, and the conditions of Final Possession Letter have been violated by the OP No.1, therefore, the Final Possession Letter dated 12.10.2021 is not applicable.
6. Further, it has been averred in the Complaint that in Agreement for Sales dated 27.02.2019, the OP No.1 had inserted one- sided/unreasonable clauses therein, which had put the Complainant at disadvantage. Clause 11 iii., Clause 33 (i) and Clause 33 (j) of the CC No.75 of 2025 5 Agreement for Sales are unreasonable clauses. The OP No.1 vide Clause 11 (iii) without any reason had demanded the Maintenance charges in the absence of Occupation Certificate. As per Clause 33 i) OP No.1 had gone against the settled principle of law. It had been stipulated in the said clause that the Complainant would take possession on the basis of Completion/Partial Completion Certificate. Whereas as per law possession cannot be offered in the absence of Occupation Certificate. However, the builder had incorporated in Agreement for Sales a penal Clause (33 (j)) wherein it was mentioned that if allottee fails to take possession of Unit/property within three months after receiving offer of possession then the allottee would be liable to pay holding charges @ Rs.50 per Sq.ft area of the unit per month for the first six months of such delay and after that Rs.100 per Sq.ft per month would be levied from the date of offer of possession till date of actual possession. Therefore, OP No.1 has threatened the allottees/the Complainant to take possession in the absence of valid Occupation Certificate.
7. Further it has been alleged in the Complaint that as per Clause 10 of the Agreement for Sale, it is the OP No.1 who was under
obligation to execute the Conveyance deed and convey the title of the unit within 3 months from the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate.
The OP No.1 has neither executed the Conveyance Deed nor issued any letter to convey the title of the unit to the Complainant. It has vehemently been stated in the Complaint that OP No.1 does not have the Occupation Certificate issued by competent Authority till date. The OP No.1 has violated Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreements for Sale. There are number of shortcomings in the said project mentioned as under :-
1) No Occupancy Certificate.CC No.75 of 2025 6
2) No NOC from the Pollution Board.
3) No FIRE NOC
4) Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP not functional/not as per approved site plan).
5) Electricity- No electricity in the project. No electricity connections being issued by the PSPCL.
6) No Structural Stability Certificate at the time of completion.
7) No Certificate of fitness of lifts.
8) No Aircraft warning lights.
9) No certificate from Punjab Energy Development Agency (PEDA).
10) No clearance of Municipal/Civil Authorities' Taxes such as Property Tax, Fire Cess etc., and other relevant Govt. Taxes.
8. Further, it has also been pleaded in the Complaint that even OP No.4 i.e. Municipal Council has now sealed the basement of the project vide letter dated 05.08.2025 in view of the violations committed by the OP No.1. It has also ordered to seal the entire project vide letter dated 17.06.2025. The Hyper Market Space is situated in the basement, which has already been sealed by the OP No.4. Since, the project, especially the basement is sealed, therefore, OP No.1 is not in a position to deliver the possession to the Complainant. The Complainant had also filed the Complaint before RERA Authority and the same had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one with the better particulars before the competent authority. The act of OPs amounts to 'deficiency in service', 'unfair trade practice', 'unfair contract'. The Complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment. Hence, the Complaint has filed before this Commission. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the Final Possession letter dated 12.10.2021 (Ex.C-4 as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined CC No.75 of 2025 7 under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis of invalid Partial Completion Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and in the absence of the Occupation Certificate and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreements for Sale.
ii. Clause 11 iii, Clause 33 i) and Clause 33 j) of the Agreement for sale (Ex.C-2) being unreasonable clauses, be declared illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2 (46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019.
iii. The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.24,75,000/- paid by the Complainant to the OP(s) alongwith adequate rate of interest as per Section 18 of RERA, as per the opposite parties have failed to give possession by virtue of Registered Sale deed in view of Section 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 17 of the RERA Act, and Section 10 of the Agreement for Sale.
iv. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. v. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
9. Upon issuance of notice, OPs No.1&2 i.e. M/s Barnala Builders & M/s My Space Company, have filed their written reply through their Authorized Representative Mr.Deepak Aggarwal. It has been submitted that the possession of the Unit was lawfully delivered to the Complainant on 12.10.2021 as per the Agreement for Sale/applicable statutory provisions. The Complainant after taking the possession had also acknowledged the receipt of said unit/property.
Therefore, the Complainant cannot subsequently raise objections with regard to non-delivery of possession. It has been submitted by OPs No.1&2 that the claim regarding non-payment of assured returns under the MOU dated 06.11.2019 is misconceived. Clause 4.1 and Clause 2 CC No.75 of 2025 8 of the MOU clearly provide that assured returns are payable only after a moratorium/compensation-free period of 12 months from the date of actual possession after clearance of all dues. The Complainant herself has admitted that the full payment was not made at the time of possession. Therefore, any allegation regarding non-payment of assured returns is factually and legally baseless. OP No.1 has acted strictly in accordance with the agreed terms. Any failure claimed by the Complainant is due to her own non-compliance of agreed terms. Said claim cannot be construed as deficiency in service or violation of consumer rights.
10. On merits, it has been pleaded that the averment of the Complainant that she is a "Consumer" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is legally incorrect. The unit in question is a commercial unit purchased for business purposes, intended for generating rental income and commercial profits. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a "consumer" is defined as a person who buys goods or avails services for a consideration that is predominantly for personal use, and not for commercial purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that transactions entered into for business or commercial purposes do not fall within the ambit of consumer protection law.
11. It has further been pleaded in the written reply that OP No.1-M/s Barnala Builders, is a real estate development company duly constituted within legal framework. It is duly registered/authorized to undertake the development of commercial properties, including the Hyper Market Spaces purchased by the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant that OP No.1 has failed to obtain NOCs from competent authorities is misrepresented/exaggerated. The regulatory CC No.75 of 2025 9 compliances for electricity/municipal approvals/NOCs from fire Department and pollution control approvals are subject to statutory procedure and timelines. Any alleged delays or observations made by the respective regulatory authorities do not amount to deficiency of service on the part of the answering OPs.
12. The OP No.1-M/s Barnala Builders had floated/developed the project "Maya Garden Magnesia" in accordance with the sanctioned plans, approvals, and applicable regulations under the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Building Rules, 2021.
13. The Complainant had voluntarily entered into agreement with the answering OP for the purchase of Hyper Market Spaces of 250 Sq. Ft. in the project "Maya Garden Magnesia". She had satisfied herself after full inspection/verification/understanding of the project plans/layout/facilities offered under the said scheme. The claim of the Complainant that she was "tempted/allured" to buy space in said project is devoid of evidence. All the terms and conditions with regard to possession/completion/assured returns were clearly laid down in terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sales. The OP No.1 has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement/statutory approvals, and applicable regulations. There is no material evidence to suggest any misrepresentation or unfair trade practice on its part.
14. Further, it has been pleaded by the answering OPs that the Agreement for Sale is a legal binding document between the parties. The Agreement for Sale clearly specifies the terms with regard to price, payment schedule, maintenance charges and conditions for offer of possession. The Complainant had voluntarily accepted and agreed to all terms and conditions at the time of execution of Agreement for Sale. The total consideration price as per the brochure was 250 Sq. Ft. unit CC No.75 of 2025 10 was Rs. 25,49,750/-, out of which the Complainant had only paid an amount of Rs.24,75,000/-. Therefore, the Complainant herself did not abide by the schedule of payment. The outstanding amount was specifically linked to the formal delivery of possession and fulfilment of contractual obligations. The claim of the Complainant that valid possession was not offered is misconceived and factually incorrect. The offer of possession was made in strict compliance with the agreed terms, after a substantial portion of the payment was made by her.
15. It was denied that the answering OPs had attempted to artificially bifurcate the claims of the Complainant into "valid possession" and "assured return/compensation/lease," whereas both these issues are subject to the execution of Agreement for Sale/statutory approvals and payment of dues. The attempt of the Complainant to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in respect of a commercial transaction for Hyper Market Spaces, is itself outside the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Commission, as commercial unit intended for earning livelihood or business activity do not fall within the definition of 'goods or services' for personal use, as envisaged under Sections 2(7) and 2(8) of the Act.
16. The Complainant has overlooked that Clause 5 of the Agreement for Sale clearly states the applicable conditions for handover of possession upon receipt of Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate after receipt of payment of all dues. Therefore, the payment of dues is an equally material condition precedent to valid possession. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had not paid the full consideration and maintenance charges due towards her at the time of the offer of possession. Despite this, the OP No.1 had lawfully offered possession on 12.10.2021 and the Complainant had accepted the CC No.75 of 2025 11 same. It has been reiterated that offer of possession was in strict compliance with the terms of the Agreement for Sale and cannot be treated as 'deficiency in service'. The allegation with respect to "partial occupancy certificate" as the law does not recognize any concept of partial Occupancy Certificate in commercial projects is ill founded. The Completion Certificate had been obtained after fulfilling all statutory approvals/compliances in accordance with law. Any reference made by the Complainant with regard to the certificates is therefore factually misleading. Under Section 2(zf) of the RERA, the Occupancy Certificate is defined as the certificate issued by the competent authority after completing of all formalities. OP No.1 had complied with all statutory obligations. It had ensured that the units offered were fit for possession in accordance with the agreement and the law.
17. Further, it has been vehemently denied that the OP No.1 had failed to deliver possession in accordance with law and the Complainant is automatically entitled to get refund of the entire amount along with interest. As per Section 18 of RERA, the obligation to return amounts along with interest or compensation arises only upon failure to deliver possession of a unit where the builder has not complied with statutory approvals. In the present case, the OP No.1 never had any intention to flout the law or offer unlawful possession. In fact the possession is contingent upon completion of all legal/safety obligations including the issuance of a valid Occupation Certificate.
18. It has been further pleaded that the Complainant had earlier filed Complaint before RERA regarding said unit, which was dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a fresh complaint with better particulars before a competent forum. This clearly demonstrates that the Complainant has not exhausted her remedies under the CC No.75 of 2025 12 framework of RERA. Therefore, the present complaint is premature and devoid of merit.
19. It has also been submitted that the allegations of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, unfair contract, and harassment are entirely baseless, speculative, and not supported by any evidence. The answering OPs had acted in accordance with the law/terms of agreement and regulatory requirements. All other allegations have been denied. They have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
20. OP No.4-Municipal Council Zirakpur had appeared through its Counsel and filed its separate written reply to the Complaint. It has been submitted that the Complaint against OP No.4 is not maintainable as the Complainant has only sought the relief against OPs No.1&2 i.e. the private builders with whom the Complainant had entered into contractual agreement and had received the payments. Thus, the Complainant had no cause of action to file the present Complaint against OP No. 4 which is the Govt. Organization i.e. Municipal Council Zirakpur. Answering OP has not received any consideration amount from the Complainant. It is only a governing body which issues Completion Certificate after verification of the site.
21. In the present Complaint, the Complainant has alleged mala fide on the part of OP No.4 in issuance of the Partial Completion Certificate with regard to the project in question. It has been pleaded that OP No.4 has issued Partial Completion Certificate in connivance with OP No.1 whereas the OP No.4 has issued Partial Completion Certificate in consonance with the Provisions of Rule 3.18 of the Punjab Municipal Building Bye Laws 2018. As per said bye-laws, the project which is not completed in one single phase, but constructed in different stages in such cases Partial Completion Certificate is issued for the CC No.75 of 2025 13 building which has been completed subject to certain conditions. Hence the allegation of the Complainant that a wrong Partial Completion Certificate issued by OP No.4 is not correct.
22. Further, the allegation of the Complainant that answering OP (OP no.4) has ignored the condition laid down in the CLU is untenable and devoid of any merit, as the said averment made by the Complainant fails to take into account that the said Partial Completion Certificate has been issued by OP No.4 in consonance with the corresponding bye-laws (Punjab Municipal Building Bye-laws, 2018).
23. With regard to the sealing of the basement area of the said project 'Maya Garden Magnesia' on 05.08.2025, it has been pleaded that it was a proactive measure taken by the answering OP, which is a subsequent event to the final Completion Certificate dated 15.03.2022. It unequivocally demonstrates the commitment of the answering OP towards public safety and compliance to regulatory norms, thereby contradicting any connivance with the builder OP No.1. The sealing notice/relevant photographs showcasing the sealing of the basement area and the final Completion Certificate dated 15.03.2022 have been tendered as Annexure OP-4/1, OP-4/2 and OP-4/3 respectively.
24. Furthermore, it has been pleaded that the Complainant has failed to acknowledge that the final Completion Certificate dated 15.03.2022 was issued to the OP No.1 which had superseded the previous Partial Completion Certificate with the express terms and conditions that it was the bounden duty of OP No.1 to obtain NOC from other departments as per its requirement. OP No.1 was bound to obtain machinery/equipment as per its requirement with regard to Fire Safety and Environment Clearance. It was also the bounden duty of OP No.1 to submit the Fire Safety Certificate to the answering OP by getting it CC No.75 of 2025 14 renewed every year. The OP No.1 had violated conditions with regard to Fire Safety. The answering OP had sent number of letters in this regard to OP No.1. However, there was no action on its part. Therefore, the basement area of the project 'Maya Garden Magnesia' was sealed on 05.08.2025. The letters dated 08.01.2024, 04.12.2024, 24.01.2025 and 31.01.2025 were issued by OP No.4 regarding non-execution of sale deeds and regarding unavailability of the basic facilities. The said letters have been placed on record as Annexure OP-4/4, OP-4/5, OP- 4/6 and OP-4/7 respectively.
25. Further, taking into account the inaction on the part of OP No.1, a notice dated 19.02.2025 was sent to the OP No.1 by OP No.4 with a clear direction to rectify the shortcomings and submit a report of the same within a period of 7 days. The OP No.1 by way of reply dated 28.02.2025 had requested OP No.4 to give 90 days time period to remove the said shortcomings. A detailed report regarding all the irregularities and deficiencies dated 03.03.2025 was prepared by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council Zirakpur and forwarded to the Chief Town Planner, Department of Local Government, Punjab with an express stipulation that in case defects were not rectified by the Builder within the stipulated time, legal action would be taken against the builder. The notice dated 19.02.2025 and report dated 03.03.2025 have been placed on recorded as Annexure OP-4/8 and OP-4/9 respectively. However, OP No.1 did not remove said deficiencies/shortcomings with respect to fire safety arrangements in the project 'Maya Garden Magnesia. A number of letters were written by the office of the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer but no action was taken by the Builder. Resultantly, on 21.03.2025, an inspection was carried out in the said building to check the fire safety arrangements. Since the OP No.1 had CC No.75 of 2025 15 failed to remove most of deficiencies i.e. absence of mechanical smoke exhaust system, non- installation of fire doors and presence of manual firefighting system instead of automatic, had not been removed by the builder hence, the Fire Certificate issued to the said project was cancelled vide letter dated 20.04.2025. Even, then no action was taken by the builder. Therefore, the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, Zirakpur wrote to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council Zirakpur vide letter dated 17.06.2025 to take necessary action under Section 35 of the Punjab Fire and Emergency Act, 2024, which permits the sealing of the building in case necessary fire/safety/life safety arrangements are not put in place by the builder for a long time. The letter dated 17.06.2025 is annexed as Annexure OP-4/10.
26. Further, by taking into account the continuous inaction on the part of OP No.1, OP No.4 took a proactive measure and sealed the basement area of the said project on 05.08.2025, which unequivocally demonstrates the commitment of OP No.4 towards public safety and compliance to regulatory norms, thereby contradicting any connivance with the builder-OP No.1. Furthermore, the Complainant has concealed the fact in the Complaint that the final Completion Certificate had already been issued to the Builder/OP No.1 on 15.03.2022. As such, all previous partial Completion Certificates issued by the answering OP had merged with the final Completion Certificate. The Complainant has alleged mala fide on the part of the OP No. 4. However, no Officer/official has been impleaded as party in the Complaint by the Complainant to prove allegations of mala fide which is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, the allegations of mala fide are not maintainable against a statutory body like MC Zirakpur without specifically naming or impleading the individual allegedly responsible for CC No.75 of 2025 16 any mala fide. Therefore, the present Complaint filed by the Complainant against the OP No. 4 is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable on this ground alone.
27. The Complainant has also filed the Rejoinder, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint have been reiterated and the stand of the OPs taken in their reply have been controverted/denied.
28. In order to prove their case, the Complainant has filed her affidavit along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19. The OPs No.1&2 have filed the affidavit of Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Authorized Signatory along with the copy of document (Annexure R-1). OP No.4 has filed short affidavit of Sh.Parvinder Singh, Executive Officer, Municipal Council Zirakpur along with copy of document i.e. Annexure OP-4/1 to Annexure OP-4/10.
29. Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate learned Counsel for the Complainant has argued on the similar lines as the pleas taken in the Complaint as well as in the Rejoinders filed by him. He has relied upon the certain judgments of cases i.e. 1) Kompal Mittal Vs. M/s Barnala Builders & Anr. CC No.114 of 2024, decided on 24.07.2025 (U.T.State Commission), 2) Vaibhav Garg & Anr. Vs. Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CC No.496 of 2019, decided on 08.04.2025 (NC), 3) Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667 (SC), 4) M/s Treaty Construction & Anr. Vs. M/s Ruby Tower Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5699 of 2019, decided on 19.07.2019 (SC), 5) Debashis Sinha & Ors. Vs. M/s R.N.R. Enterprise, Civil Appeal No.3343 of 2020, decided on 09.02.2023 (SC), in support of his oral arguments.
CC No.75 of 2025 17
30. Mr.Arshit Goel, Advocate learned Counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued on the similar lines as per the pleading mentioned in the written reply. Learned Counsel has submitted that the present Complaint has been filed in October 2025 i.e. after the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021 were brought into force. Admittedly, in the present case the total paid up consideration of the present Complaint is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs). The admitted total paid up consideration in the present case is 24,75,000/-. No explanation or averments have been given in the complaint, with respect to how does this Hon'ble State Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction in the present case. Furthermore, the Complainant in the head note has mentioned that the Complaint has been filed under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) r/w 49 (2) which pertains to setting aside the unfair terms and conditions of the agreement as void.
31. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement for Sale dated 27.02.2019, do not constitute an "unfair contract" in any manner and are therefore binding upon the parties. The said Agreement is a RERA-compliant Agreement for Sale. It was executed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder, and therefore carries statutory sanctity and enforceability.
32. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainant has failed to specifically plead or demonstrate as to how the said clauses are unfair, arbitrary or one-sided, and has merely made vague and bald allegations without any substantiation. In absence of specific pleadings and proof, the challenge to the CC No.75 of 2025 18 Agreement is liable to be rejected. Further, even assuming (though not admitted) that there has been any alleged misuse or improper invocation of any clause, such alleged misuse, if any, cannot render the clause itself unfair or void, when the clause is an otherwise valid term of contract.
33. The Agreement provides a balanced framework governing reciprocal rights and obligations of both parties. The provisions relating to possession are in consonance with statutory requirements, wherein possession is to be offered upon obtaining the Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority, thereby ensuring compliance with law. The clauses relating to maintenance charges, holding charges and other obligations are standard in nature and necessary for efficient project execution and management.
34. It has also been submitted by learned Counsel that the possession letter, in itself, does not constitute an "agreement" between the parties and therefore cannot be challenged as an unfair contract. The said letter is merely a subsequent intimation/communication issued in furtherance of the already executed Agreement for Sale and does not create independent contractual rights or obligations. Hence, any attempt by the Complainant to assail the possession letter by which the physical possession has been handed over to the Complainant being unfair is legally untenable and misconceived. The only binding contract between the parties remains the Agreement for Sale, which is duly compliant with law.
35. The present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the Complainant has failed to properly plead or substantiate the valuation of the claim so as to bring it within the pecuniary limits of this Commission. CC No.75 of 2025 19 The vague allegations by way of inflated claims coupled with an unsubstantiated challenge to contractual clauses, clearly demonstrate an attempt to artificially invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.
36. Further the learned Counsel has submitted that the unfounded challenge to the Agreement is merely a device to circumvent the pecuniary jurisdictional limits, without establishing how the clauses are unfair or how the claim legitimately falls within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Such an approach is impermissible in law and renders the complaint liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is a settled principle of law that pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be expanded or overridden by merely citing a provision of law in the abstract, without fulfilling its essential preconditions. In this case, the Complainant cannot circumvent the bar of pecuniary jurisdiction by an unsubstantiated invocation of Section 49(2). This Commission, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in its present form especially on prayer/relief of the refund of the amount paid which is below 50 Lakhs. He has relied upon certain judgments i.e. 1) Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Kamal Aggarwal & Ors., FA No.115 of 2024 decided on 25.08.2025 (NC), 2) Varun Ahuja and Ors. Vs. M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CC No.139 of 2023, decided on 23.09.2024 (NC), 3) Sudha Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 166, 4) Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs. Alpha Wheels, CC No.51 of 2023, (SCDRC Chandigarh), 5) Abhishek Bishnoi & Ors. Vs. M/s Barnala Builders & Property Consultants & Anr., CC No.61 of 2022, (this Commission), 6) Urmila Devi Vs. M/s Barnala Builders, CC No.19 of 2023, (this Commission), 7) Dr.Jagtesh Singh Sidhu Vs. M/s ATM Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CC No.20 of 2023 (this Commission), 8) Raj Rani Mittal Vs. PUDA & Anr., CC No.75 of 2025 20 CC No.109 of 2025, (SCDRC, Chandigarh) and 9) Yoshita Vs. M/s Barnala Builder, GC No.0494 of 2021, RERA Punjab, in support of his oral arguments.
37. Ms.Kavita Arora, Advocate, learned Counsel for OP No.4 has also argued on the similar lines as per the pleading mentioned in the written reply/statement filed by it. Learned Counsel for OP No.4 has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of case titled as "Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Ors". (2013) 1 SCC 524 in support of her oral arguments.
38. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully gone through the contents of the Complaint, evidence and documents brought on the record by the parties.
39. The primary issue to be adjudicated before us is as to whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint in hand or not?
40. Before, we set to adjudicate on the aforesaid issue, it is important to mention sequence of events of the case. 16.10.2018 The Complainant had applied for Hyper Market Space in Project name "Maya Garden Magnesia".
27.02.2019 An Agreement was executed for Sale dated 27.02.2019 for 250 Sq.ft. between the parties. The price for the said space was Rs.25,19,750/-.
12.10.2021 The OP No.1 issued Final Possession letter dated 12.10.2021 for 250 Sq.ft. for Hyper Market Space.
08.10.2025 The Complaint was filed before this Commission on 08.10.2025.
CC No.75 of 2025 21In light of aforesaid sequence of events, it is clear that the Agreement for Sale was signed between the parties in 2019 whereas the unfair clauses have been challenged before this Commission by way of filing Complaint dated 08.10.2025.
41. Without going into the merits of the case, it is important to deal with the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with regard to the Complaint in hand as during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for OP No.1&2 has taken a specific objection that the Complaint is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Since preliminary objection on maintainability of the Complaint has been raised by the learned Counsel, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this objection of the opposite party is being considered first.
42. It is pertinent to refer to relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act defines the pecuniary jurisdiction under which a complaint can be filed which reads as under:-
1. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
The clause with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction was amended w.e.f.
30.12.2021 mentioned as under:-
"Jurisdiction of District Commission.--Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to sub- section (1) of section 34 of the Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.
Jurisdiction of State Commission.--Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain CC No.75 of 2025 22 complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds fifty lakh but does not exceed two crore rupees.
Jurisdiction of National Commission.--Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds two crore rupees."
43. In the case in hand, the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.24,75,000/- towards Hyper Market Space. Therefore, as per the aforesaid definition of 'pecuniary jurisdiction', the value of goods and services paid for consideration is required to be considered for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, in the case in hand since the consideration amount paid by the Complainant was Rs.24,75,000/-, apparently, the pecuniary jurisdiction is not of State Commission as there is a direct nexus of claim with the value of goods and services paid. In the present case the refund sought in prayer and the consideration paid is less than Rs.50 lacs, therefore, the complaint does not fall under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
44. The Counsel for the Complainant has made reliance on the provisions of Section 47 (1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which gives jurisdiction only to the State Commission or the National Commission to declare the terms of a contract as 'unfair' to co-relate it to pecuniary jurisdiction. It is important to refer to the provisions of Section 47(1)(a)(ii) which reads as under:-
47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;CC No.75 of 2025 23
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;
(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and Section 2(46) of the 2019 Act defines 'unfair contract' as under:-
"2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(46) "unfair contract" means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:--
(i) requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the performance of contractual obligations; or
(ii) imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract thereof which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract; or
(iii) refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty; or
(iv) entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without reasonable cause; or
(v) permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer, without his consent; or
(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage"
The Complainant has made the following prayers in the prayer clause:-
i. Declare the Final Possession letter dated 12.10.2021 (Ex.C-4) as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis of invalid Partial Completion Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and in the absence of the Occupation Certificate and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreements for Sale.
ii. Clause 11 iii, Clause 33 i) and Clause 33 j) of the Agreement for sale (Ex.C-2) being unreasonable clauses, be declared illegal, null and void being one-sided and CC No.75 of 2025 24 unfair contract, as defined under Section 2 (46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019.
iii. The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.24,75,000/- paid by the Complainant to the OP(s) alongwith adequate rate of interest as per Section 18 of RERA, as per the opposite parties have failed to give possession by virtue of Registered Sale deed in view of Section 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 17 of the RERA Act, and Section 10 of the Agreement for Sale.
iv. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant.
v. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
45. The prayer clearly show that the Complainant is seeking refund of Rs.24,75,000/- which is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. Now the only point for consideration is as to whether there is any contract which can be declared 'unfair' under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) for invoking pecuniary jurisdiction by the State Commission for which the following facts are very important to be noticed in the present case:-
i) The Complainant has already taken possession of the commercial unit and Final Possession Letter dated 12.10.2021 is duly signed by the Complainant. The Complainant has acknowledged the said letter of possession. He has not placed on record any document to show if any protest was made by the Complainant on that day or immediately after that about any term of the agreement, which according to him was unfair.
While signing the Agreement in 2019 or taking possession in 2021, no protest or grouse has been shown by the Complainant, which clearly means that the agreement and the possession was consented to. The complaint has been filed CC No.75 of 2025 25 in 2025 alleging some deficiencies in the surrounding area or the maintenance issues which may be the deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice but does not come under the definition of 'unfair contract'
ii) In other Complaints No.33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of 2025, an additional prayer of declaring all the clauses of Maintenance Agreement as illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract has been made, whereas the said Maintenance Agreement was also duly signed and consented by the respective Complainants in aforesaid Complaints in the year 2021. It has nowhere been mentioned that the Maintenance Agreement has been singed 'under protest' and no immediate protest was raised. The Complaint has been filed in 2025 regarding execution of Maintenance Agreement which an issue of 'unfair trade practice' or 'deficiency in service' but it cannot be covered under the definition of 'unfair contract' referred above. It is clearly held here that no observations with regard to the 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' on the part of opposite parties are being made as only the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is being discussed here. So far as the power of the State Commission to declare any term of the contract as unfair is concerned, reference is made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Civil Appeal No.8249 of 2022 titled as M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and others, decided on 9.11.2022' which reads as under:-
"32.Section 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act have been introduced to facilitate the State Commission and the National Commission to exercise jurisdiction over a contract which is unfair. As stated, the power is not only with respect to identifying a contract as unfair or not, but also to grant the consequential relief.
33.Under sub-section (2) of Section 49 and 59 of the 2019 Act, the State Commission and the National Commission, respectively, may declare any terms of the contract being CC No.75 of 2025 26 unfair to any consumer to be null and void. The principle governing the doctrine of civil remedy of a contract is well enshrined in this provision.
34.In these provisions, there exists ample power to declare any terms of the contract as unfair by the State Commission and the National Commission. The words "any terms of the contract" would empower the State Commission and the National Commission to exercise unrestricted jurisdiction over any particular term of a contract, if in its opinion, its introduction by the insurer has certain elements of unfairness. The consequence of the declaration of that term as unfair, would make the contract active and executable to the benefit of the consumer. Therefore, this provision takes care of a possible mischief by the insurer as against the consumer."
46. In context of pecuniary jurisdiction, we are further fortified by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of case titled as 'Rutu Mihir Panchal and others Versus Union of India and others' 2025 INSC 593', wherein it has been held that Sections 34, 47 and 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 have been notified to file Complaint on the basis of value of goods and services paid for consideration as there is no right or a privilege of a consumer to raise an unlimited claim of compensation and thereby chose a forum of his choice for instituting a complaint. The relevant part of the judgement reads as under:-
"11.1 There is also a misconception that there is some kind of a loss of judicial remedy. No such event has occurred because of Sections 34, 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act. The relief or compensation that a consumer could claim remained unrestricted and at the same time, access to the state or the national commission is also not taken away. It is well settled that there is no right or a privilege of a consumer to raise an unlimited claim of compensation and thereby chose a forum of his choice for instituting a complaint. In Nandita Bose CC No.75 of 2025 27 v.Ratanlal Nahta, this Court has held that a court or a tribunal will always have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess an overvalued or grossly undervalued claim in a petition in the following terms:-
"4......The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts are well settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiffs valuation in his plaint determines the court in which it can be presented. It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly over-valuing or grossly under-valuing a suit. The court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of law. Under Rule 10 of Order 7 of the Code the plaint can be returned at any stage of the suit for presentation to the court in which the suit should have been instituted......"
(emphasis supplied) In conclusion, while we hold that there is no unrestricted claim for compensation and that it is subject to the determination of the court, we hold that classification of claims based on value of goods and services paid as consideration as a direct nexus to the object of creating a hierarchical structure of judicial remedies through tribunals."
47. In light of aforesaid observations recorded in said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held that the Complaint(s) in hand does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as the Complainant has failed to prove as to how the Complaint filed by the Complainant falls within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as the consideration paid is less than Rs.50 lacs. Further, her prayer made in the Complaint is also for refund of Rs.24,75,000/- which again is less than Rs.50 lacs i.e. the pecuniary jurisdiction as stipulated in Section 47 read with rules.
CC No.75 of 2025 28
48. Further, in the present case, no specific term of the contract/Agreement for Sale has been pleaded as unfair. On the contrary, the Complainant had accepted the terms and conditions of the agreement in 2019 and then took possession of the commercial space in 2021 without any protest. The Complainant(s) also entered into the maintenance agreement in 2021 without any protest (in CC Nos. 33 to
37). The alleged deficiency in the maintenance work or the alleged unfair trade practice in the commercial space, cannot be looked into by this Commission since the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission as discussed in foregoing paras. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Complaint is dismissed on the ground that the same do not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court. The challenge to the Maintenance Agreement being unfair/one sided made in CC Nos.33 of 2025, 34 of 2025, 35 of 2025, 36 of 2025 and 37 of 2025 is also not maintainable qua pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and hence dismissed.
CC No.33 of 2025
49. Similarly in CC No.33 of 2025, the Complainant has pleaded that he had purchased Hyper Market Spaces from OP No.1. The project is named as "Maya Garden Magnesia", situated at Singhpura in Tehsil and District Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab. It was solely purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood for himself and his children by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 18.08.2018. As per the brochure provided by the OP No.1, the price of the Hyper Market Space was Rs.21,50,000/- + GST. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.21,87,214/- for said property. Other CC No.75 of 2025 29 averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.75 of 2025 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the offer of possession letter dated 21.03.2020 (Ex.C-3) and Final Possession Letter dated 04.07.2021 (Ex.C-4) as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis on invalid Partial Occupancy Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreement of Sale.
ii. All the clauses of Maintenance Agreement dated 04.07.2021 (Annexure C-15) be declared illegal, null and void being one- sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2(46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019, as the Maintenance Charges cannot be claimed in the absence of complete Occupancy Certificate and association of allottees as per Clause 11 of the Agreement for Sale.
iii. The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,87,214/- paid by the Complainant to the OP(s) alongwith adequate rate of interest as per Section 18 of RERA, as the OPs have failed to give possession by virtue of Registered Sale deed in view of Section 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 17 of the RERA Act, and Section 10 of the Agreement for Sale. iv. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. v. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
50. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.75 of 2025, the CC No.33 of 2025 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court.
CC No.75 of 2025 30CC No.34 of 2025
51. Similarly in CC No.34 of 2025, the Complainant has pleaded that he had purchased Hyper Market Spaces from OP No.1. The project is named as "Maya Garden Magnesia", situated at Singhpura in Tehsil and District Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab. It was solely purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood for himself and his children by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 06.07.2018. As per the brochure provided by the OP No.1, the price of the Hyper Market Space was Rs.24,22,262/- + GST. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.26,14,500/- for said property. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.75 of 2025 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the Final Possession letter dated 26.06.2021 (Ex.C-3) as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis on invalid Partial Occupancy Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreement for Sale.
ii. All the clauses of Maintenance Agreement dated 26.06.2021 (Ex.C-11) be declared illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2(46) and Section 47 (1)
(a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019, as the Maintenance Charges cannot be claimed in the absence of complete Occupancy Certificate and association of allottees as per Clause 11 of the Agreement for Sale.
iii. The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.26,14,500/- paid by the Complainant to the OP(s) alongwith adequate rate of interest as per Section 18 of RERA, as the OPs have failed to CC No.75 of 2025 31 give possession by virtue of Registered sale deed in view of Section 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 17 of the RERA Act, and Section 10 of the Agreement for Sale. iv. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. v. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
52. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.75 of 2025, the CC No.34 of 2025 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court.
CC No.35 of 2025
53. Similarly in CC No.35 of 2025, the Complainant has pleaded that she had purchased Hyper Market Spaces from OP No.1. The project is named as "Maya Garden Magnesia", situated at Singhpura in Tehsil and District Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab. It was solely purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood for herself and her children by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 03.11.2018. As per the brochure provided by the OP No.1, the price of the Hyper Market Space was Rs.24,30,291/- + GST. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.26,03,418/- for said property. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.75 of 2025 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the Final Possession letter dated 27.06.2021 (Ex.C-2) as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis of invalid Partial Occupancy Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and the CC No.75 of 2025 32 unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreement for Sale.
ii. All the clauses of Maintenance Agreement dated 27.06.2021 (Annexure C-10) be declared illegal, null and void being one- sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2(46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019, as the Maintenance Charges cannot be claimed in the absence of complete Occupancy Certificate and association of allottees as per Clause 11 of the Agreement for Sale.
iii. The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.26,03,418/-
alongwith maintenance charges paid by the Complainant to the OP(s) alongwith adequate rate of interest as the physical possession has not been delivered to the Complainant and there is no NOC from the PSPCL and Fire Department OR in alternative, the OP No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to deliver actual physical possession of the space after obtaining the Complete and valid Occupancy Certificate and to pay assured returns @ 12% per annum from 01.09.2021 till the obtaining of Complete Occupancy Certificate and after that to pay lease amount for a period of 9 years in the MOU dated 21.10.2019. iv. The OP(s) No.1&2 be directed to pay interest on the amount paid by the Complainant till the valid Occupancy Certificate is not obtained by the OPs No.1&2.
v. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. vi. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
54. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.75 of 2025, the CC No.35 of 2025 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court.
CC No.36 of 2025
55. Similarly in CC No.36 of 2025, the Complainant has pleaded that she had purchased Hyper Market Spaces from OP No.1. The project is named as "Maya Garden Magnesia", situated at Singhpura in Tehsil and District Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab. It was solely purchased for the CC No.75 of 2025 33 purpose of earning livelihood for herself and her children by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 20.07.2019. As per the brochure provided by the OP No.1, the price of the Hyper Market Space was Rs.7,00,000/- + GST. The Complainant had paid entire consideration amount alongwith maintenance charges to OPs No.1&2 for said property. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.75 of 2025 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the Final Possession letter dated 20.09.2021 (Ex.C-2) as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis of invalid Partial Occupancy Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreement for Sale.
ii. All the clauses of Maintenance Agreement dated 20.09.2021 (Ex.C-10), especially Clause 4, be declared illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2(46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019, as the Maintenance Charges cannot be claimed in the absence of complete Occupancy Certificate and association of allottees as per Clause 11 of the Agreement for Sale.
iii. The OP No.1 be directed to deliver valid possession i.e. physical possession of the unit within time bound manner after obtaining the necessary approvals, especially the valid and Complete Occupancy Certificate.
iv. The OP No.1 be directed to execute the registered sale deed after obtaining the valid and Complete Occupancy Certificate and other necessary approvals.
v. The OP No.1 be directed to release and pay the Assured Returns @ 1% per month till the actual physical possession of the Unit/space alongwith interest on delayed Assured Returns and CC No.75 of 2025 34 further to pay assured compensation as per MOU dated 23.07.2019.
vi. The OPs No.1&2 be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount paid by the Complainants to the OPs No.1&2 as the OP No.1&2 charged 18% interest on account of any delay. vii. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. viii. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
56. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.75 of 2025, the CC No.36 of 2025 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court.
CC No.37 of 2025
57. Similarly in CC No.37 of 2025, the Complainant (now deceased) had purchased Hyper Market Spaces from OP No.1. The project is named as "Maya Garden Magnesia", situated at Singhpura in Tehsil and District Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab. It was solely purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood for himself and his children/family by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 03.03.2019. As per the brochure provided by the OP No.1, the price of the Hyper Market Space was Rs.8,78,000/- + GST. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.8,62,060/- including maintenance charges and GST for said property. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.75 of 2025 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the offer of possession letter dated 21.03.2020 (Ex.C-3) and Final Possession Letter dated 17.09.2021 (Ex.C-4) as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under CC No.75 of 2025 35 Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis on invalid Partial Occupancy Certificate and clause (d) of the Final Possession Letter is violated and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreement for Sale.
ii. All the clauses of Maintenance Agreement dated 17.09.2021 (Ex.C-15), especially Clause 4, be declared illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2(46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019, as the Maintenance Charges cannot be claimed in the absence of complete Occupancy Certificate and association of allottees as per Clause 11 of the Agreement for Sale.
iii. The OP No.1 be directed to deliver valid possession i.e. physical possession of the unit within time bound manner after obtaining the necessary approvals, especially the valid and Complete Occupancy Certificate.
iv. The OP No.1 be directed to execute the registered sale deed after obtaining the valid and Complete Occupancy Certificate and other necessary approvals.
v. The OP No.1 be directed to release and pay the Assured Returns @ 1% per month till the actual physical possession of the Unit/space alongwith interest on delayed Assured Returns and further to pay assured compensation as per MOU dated 04.02.2020.
vi. The OPs No.1&2 be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount paid by the Complainants to the OPs No.1&2 as the OP No.1&2 charged 18% interest on account of any delay. vii. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. viii. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
58. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.75 of 2025, the CC No.37 of 2025 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant/LRs of Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court.
CC No.75 of 2025 36CC No.77 of 2025
59. Similarly in CC No.77 of 2025, the Complainant has pleaded that he had purchased one Commercial Unit from OP No.1. The project is named as "Maya Garden Magnesia". It was solely purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood for himself by means of self-employment. The OP No.1 had executed Sale Agreement dated 21.05.2018. The basic cost of the Unit was fixed at Rs.22,11,300/- + GST and other charges amounting to Rs.1,04,000/- as EEC, PBC, PFC, CF etc. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.22,32,979/- including taxes and other charges for said property. Other averments of the Complaint were similar to that of CC No.75 of 2025 and similar prayer was made. The OPs had filed the written reply on the similar lines of their reply. Similar type of evidence was led by both the parties. The Complainant has sought the following directions to be issued to the OPs :-
i. Declare the offer of Possession Letter dated 07.09.2021 as illegal, null and void being unfair, illegal and invalid as defined under Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019 as the same has been given on the basis on invalid Partial Occupancy Certificate and in the absence of the Occupation Certificate and the unit is not in habitable condition as provided under Clause 9.1 (i) of the Agreement for Sale.
ii. Clause 11 iii., Clause 33 s) and Clause 33 t) of the Agreement for sale being unreasonable clauses, be declared illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section 2(46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the CP Act, 2019. iii. The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.22,32,979/-paid by the Complainant to the OP(s) along with adequate rate of interest as per Section 18 of RERA, as the OPs have failed to give possession by virtue of registered Sale Deed in view of Section 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 17 of the RERA Act, Section 10 of the Agreement for Sale.CC No.75 of 2025 37
iv. To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment alongwith anticipated costs of present litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. v. Any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit.
60. In view of the discussion and the reasons as mentioned in CC No.75 of 2025, the CC No.77 of 2025 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court.
61. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
62. The Complaints could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER May 04, 2026.
Rupinder 2