State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sandeep Kumar S/O. Darshan Lal vs Credo Assets Private Limited on 31 December, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
Complaint No. : 43 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
1. SANDEEP KUMAR, aged 47 years, S/o Sh. Darshan Lal.
2. Mrs. Sweety, W/o Sh. SANDEEP KUMAR.
Both residents of House No. 1257, 1st Floor, Tower COD2 13, City of
Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran - Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar,
Punjab 140301.
...COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
Complaint No. : 44 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
1. SHRAMIT CHAUDHARY, aged 40 years, S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh
2. Mrs. Ranjna Kumari w/o Sh. Shramit Chaudhary.
Both Residents of Flat No. 0246 on Ground Floor, Tower COD2 12,
City of Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran - Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS
Nagar, Punjab - 140301.
...COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
2
Complaint No. : 45 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
1. OM PARKASH VERMA, aged 66 years, S/o Sh. NATHU RAM.
2. Mrs. SANTOSH VERMA w/o SH. OM PARKASH VERMA.
Both Residents of Flat No.10217, 10th Floor, Tower G 3, City of
Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS
Nagar, Mohali- 140301.
...COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No.1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
Complaint No. : 46 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
1. VIKASH KUMAR JHA, aged 31 years, S/o Sh. Shiv Chandra Jha,
Resident of House No. 3634, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh - 160047.
2. Ms. Vanshika Dixit, aged 30 years, W/o Sh. Vikash Kumar Jha,
Resident of House No. 2263, Second Floor, Olivia, Tower COD2 14,
City of Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran - Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS
Nagar, Punjab - 140301.
...COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
3
Complaint No. : 47 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
1. SHIVANI CHOUHAN, aged 38 years, W/o Sh. GAURAV BAJAJ.
2. GAURAV BAJAJ S/o Sh. ASHOK BAJAJ.
Both Residents of Flat No. 2259 on 2nd Floor, Tower COD2 13, City of
Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran - Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar,
Punjab - 140301.
...COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
Complaint No. : 48 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
1. PARVEEN KUMAR, aged 37 years, S/o Sh. JAGDISH CHAND.
2. Mrs. ADITI KAUSHAL W/o Sh. PARVEEN KUMAR.
Both residents of Flat No. 3262 on 3rd Floor, Tower COD2 14, City of
Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran - Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar,
Punjab - 140301.
...COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
4
Complaint No. : 49 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
GURJEET KAUR, aged 48 years, W/o Mr. Palwinder Pal Singh, Resident of
Flat No.1255 1st Floor, Tower/Block No. COD2 13 City of Dream 2" Sector
116, Landran- Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
Complaint No. : 50 of 2025
Date of Institution : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 31.12.2025
SANJEET KAUR, aged 42 years, W/o Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Resident of Flat
No.3217, 3rd floor, Tower/ Block COD1G/ 3 City of Dream1" Sector 116,
Landran- Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab - 140401.
...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing
Director/Director Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at
SCO No. 146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh,
160043.
2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its
Directors, Plot No. 1265 C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial
Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, 140308.
...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by :-
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant(s) Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties 5 PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER By this order, we propose to dispose of the above captioned 8 consumer complaints under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 alleging deficient & negligent services, unfair trade practice against the opposite parties besides terming the certain terms & conditions of the maintenance agreement to be illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract. Since, the issues involved in these complaints, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, therefore, we are of the opinion that the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
2. In these complaints, the respective complainants, seeking directions to the opposite parties to provide Occupancy Certificate of building to the complainant(s); pay penal interest on the deposited amount till occupancy certificate is not obtained by the opposite parties; refund society maintenance charges, SMC, IFMC and Gas Pipe Line charges etc. in the absence of such Occupancy Certificate; provide open on surface parking besides claiming compensation etc. for mental agony and harassment and ₹50,000/- as cost of litigation. However, in complaints bearing Nos.45 of 2025 & 50 of 2025, the respective complainants have additionally sought relief qua provision of a lift in their tower(s) having capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person.
3. However, the facts are being culled from Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2025 titled "Sandeep Kumar ad another Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." as follows:-
Brief facts : (CC/43/2025)
4. The complainants were allotted a residential flat bearing No.1257, 1st Floor, Tower/Block in the project of the opposite parties i.e. City of Dreams-2 [COD2 13] situated in Sector 116, Landran-Kharar Road, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 15.10.2020, Annexure C-2, for a total consideration price of ₹35,30,702/-. An agreement for sale, Annexure C-3, was executed on 15.10.2020 itself. Maintenance Agreement, Annexure C-5, was also got executed on 15.10.2020 itself. As per Clause 7.1 of the said agreement, possession of the unit was to be 6 delivered on or before 31st July 2021 and as per Clause 7.2, such possession as to be offered upon obtaining the occupancy certificate from the competent authority by the opposite parties. The complainants paid an amount of ₹36,84,499/- to the opposite parties including stamp duty, registration fee charges and society maintenance charges, which they duly acknowledged. After offer of possession, the Sale Deed qua the flat in question, was got registered on 24.06.2022, Annexure C-4.
5. However, the details with regard to case No., Flat No./Floor No./Tower No., Area of flat(s), Total Sale Consideration, Date of Agreement for Sale, Date of Maintenance Agreement, Date of Possession Letter, Date of execution of Sale Deed, involved in these bunch of cases, are tabulated here- in-below:-
Sr. Case No. Flat No./Floor Total Sale Date of Date of Date of Date of No No./Tower No. Consideration Agreement maintenance Possession execution of for Sale agreement. Letter Sale Deed st
1. 43/2025 1257, 1 Floor, ₹35,30,702/- 15.10.2020 15.10.2020 19.09.2022 24.06.2022 Tower/Block No.COD2 13
2. 44/2025 0246, Ground ₹35,00,400/- 09.03.2021 09.03.2021 10.05.2023 15.05.2023 Floor, Tower/ Block No.COD2 12 th
3. 45/2025 10217, 10 Floor, ₹41,55,883/- 05.12.2019 05.12.2019 16.09.2022 03.11.2022 Tower No.COD1 G/3 nd
4. 46/2025 2263, 2 Floor, ₹38,17,976/- 31.12.2020 31.12.2020 26.09.2022 23.04.2024 Tower/Block No.COD2 14 nd
5. 47/2025 2259, 2 Floor, ₹31,97,400/- 01.03.2021 01.03.2021 14.07.2022 27.06.2022 Tower/Block No.COD2 13 rd
6. 48/2025 3262, 3 Floor, ₹14,69,732/- 29.04.2021 29.04.2021 16.09.2022 02.08.2022 Tower/Block No.COD2 14 st
7. 49/2025 1255, 1 Floor, ₹18,84,400/- 29.12.2020 29.12.2020 08.09.2022 04.11.2022 Tower/Block No.COD2 13 rd
8. 50/2025 3217, 3 Floor, ₹43,07,385/- 17.10.2020 17.10.2020 16.06.2022 01.08.2022 Tower/Block & No.COD1 G/3 20.06.2022 7
6. It has been stated that since the opposite parties are not in possession of any Occupancy Certificate/completion certificate, therefore, such a physical possession is illegal and invalid. It has further been stated that the opposite parties even cannot charge maintenance charges from the complainant(s) when they are not in possession of the mandatory Occupancy Certificate of the building and as per Clause 1.11 of the Agreement for Sale, the opposite parties have agreed to pay all outgoings including maintenance charges before transferring of physical possession of the flat to the complainant(s). It has further been stated that the opposite parties have not yet allotted or provided open on surface parking in view of agreed Clause G, Clause 1.2 (iv), Clause 1.9 and Schedule 'A' Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the RERA, which clearly provides that the opposite parties shall allot one open on surface parking to the complainant(s) and agreed to give/decide parking number/location at the time of possession of the unit.
7. It has further been stated that the opposite parties were bound to deliver the possession of the unit after obtaining all necessary approvals from the competent authorities, especially Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities and possession offered and execution of sale deed, in the absence of Occupation Certificate is not a valid possession in the eyes of law. It has further been stated that all the charges levied by the opposite parties, in the absence of Occupancy Certificate, are illegal and invalid and cannot be claimed. It has further been stated that the opposite parties even do not have the NOC for Fire Fighting and to this effect, they have also given undertaking dated 01.08.2024, Annexure C-6, to the Director, Local Government, that all pending works will be completed by 31.08.2024. It has further been stated that the said time line has also lapsed and till date, the work has not been completed.
8. However, in complaints bearing Nos.45 of 2025 & 50 of 2025, the respective complainants have additionally averred that as per Clause 4.6(7) of Notification dated 31.12.2019 of The Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, there should have been a provision of one lift in the towered group housing buildings having the capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person but the lift installed by the opposite 8 parties in the building does not have enough space to carry an ailing person on the stretcher. It has further been stated that there is not enough space left for even a single person/attendant to carry an ailing person on wheel chair in the lift. It has further been stated that the opposite parties have now installed the Fire System on the staircase, thereby, restricting and obstructing the space to carry stretcher from the stair case in the absence of enough space in the lift.
9. It has further been stated that all the charges levied by the opposite parties are illegal and invalid charges as the IFMS and SMC i.e. Maintenance Charges) cannot be claimed in the absence of Occupancy Certificate. It has further been stated that the clauses & terms and conditions of the Maintenance Agreement dated 15.10.2020, Annexure C-5, are self contradictory, illegal, entirely one-sided and unfair contract. Defence of the opposite parties - struck off.
10. The defence of the opposite parties was struck off vide order dated 16.09.2025 as they failed to file their written versions/replies within the stipulated period of 45 days from the respective dates of their service, which was effected on 29.07.2025 upon opposite party No.1 and 15.07.2025 upon opposite party No.2.
Evidence led by the complainant(s)
11. The complainant(s) led evidence in support of their respective cases.
12. However, no written arguments have been filed by the parties.
13. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documentary evidence on record led by the complainant(s).
14. In nutshell, the case of the complainant(s) is that the possession offered by the opposite parties is illegal and invalid as it is without a mandatory Occupancy/Completion Certificate, Fire NOC and other statutory approvals and therefore no maintenance, IFMS or other charges can be levied especially when the Agreement for Sale obliges the opposite parties to bear all outgoings prior to valid possession. It is further alleged that open surface parking has not been allotted as agreed under the contract and RERA Rules and that essential safety requirements remain unmet including 9 non-compliant lift dimensions for stretcher access and obstruction of staircases due to fire installations. Further alleged that STP is not working and consequently, all charges raised are asserted to be unlawful and the Maintenance Agreement is challenged as arbitrary, one-sided and unfair. Counsel for the complainant argued that earlier also, similar issues pertaining to this very builder and the project in question have already been decided by the Principle Bench of this Commission and as such, these cases be also decided on same lines and similar relief be awarded.
15. Despite their defence having been struck off, the Counsel for the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaints on the point of non- joinder/mis-joinder, lack of territorial and absence of a consumer-service provider relationship after execution of the sale deed and acceptance of possession, bar of limitation and the existence of an alternative remedy under the RERA adjudicatory mechanism. On merits, he argued that the project was duly approved and completed as per sanctioned plans, possession was taken without protest with a satisfaction note, all amenities including parking, STP, lifts and maintenance services are duly provided, no construction defects or statutory violations exist, (in CC/45/2025 & CC/50/2025) the lift complies with applicable norms and the notification is not applicable to the facts involved in these cases. It has further been argued that the lift have been installed as per the approved site plan and as per the provisions established under the law. It has further been argued that there is no violation on the part of the opposite parties while installing the lifts to the project. It has further been argued that the complainants are estopped from raising belated allegations merely to avoid payment of legitimate maintenance charges, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
16. The complainant(s) led evidence in support of their case.
17. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of this case very carefully.
18. As regards the argument raised by the Counsel for the opposite parties qua non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties, the same is found to be wholly devoid of merit and untenable in law. The present complaint 10 has been properly instituted against the opposite parties, against whom allegations of deficiency in service have been leveled. No other party has been shown to be either necessary or indispensable for the adjudication of the issues involved. Accordingly, this argument stands rejected.
19. As regards the territorial jurisdiction, it has been argued by the Counsel for the opposite parties that since the present address of opposite party No.1 is at Mohali and the agreement to sale dated 15.10.2020 had been executed at Mohali, therefore, this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. In this regard, it may be stated here that Section 47(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly provides that a complaint can be instituted where the opposite party resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, or where the complainant resides or works for gain. Since it already stood judicially established in earlier matters relating to the same builder and project, i.e. Keshav Bansal vs. Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. (CC No.92 of 2024 decided on 26.05.2025) that the opposite parties were carrying on business and working for gain at their Chandigarh office, therefore, this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints and the contention of the Counsel for the opposite parties is rejected.
20. Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties that since the complainants in all the cases have already taken over possession and also executed sale deeds also, as such, they ceased to be consumers, it may be stated here that perusal of record reveals that the complainants are aggrieved of non providing of some amenities like parking, lifts etc. and also non obtaining of occupation certificates in respect of their respective unit. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, since the complainants have still some grievances to be redressed qua the project in question, as such, the mere fact of taking over possession and execution of sale deed is not a bar for them to file these complaints, for getting redressal of their remaining grievances, if any. Our this view is fully supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debashis Sinha vs. M/s R.N.R Enterprise, 2023 Live Law (SC) 92, wherein it was held that the mere fact that possession has been taken over by the consumer cannot 11 forfeit his/her right to claim the services etc. promised by the project proponent. As such, the contention raised in this regard also stands rejected Merits of the case:-
21. It is significant to mention here that admittedly, in all these cases, respective agreements were executed between the parties, in the year 2019 to 2021. It is also an admitted fact that possession of the respective units has already been taken over by the respective complainants, as far as back in the years 2022, 2023 & 2024 and sale deeds have also been executed between the parties. However, perusal of record reveals that the complainants are still aggrieved on the following issues and are seeking following reliefs:-
i. To provide one open parking space other than the one already provided, as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement;
ii. To stop charging maintenance charges till the time, occupation certificate is obtained from the competent authorities and till such time, to make payment of delayed compensation from the promised date of delivery of possession till occupation certificate is received; iii. to provide a lift in their tower(s) having capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person (complaints bearing Nos.45 of 2025 & 50 of 2025).
In this regard, it is apposite to mention here that earlier in a separate bunch of cases pertaining to this very project (the lead cases that 'Manpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.', CC No.73 of 2023 decided on 29.02.2024; Gurpreet Singh & Anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.' CC No.32 of 2024 decided on 13.12.2024 and that of 'Keshav Bansal vs. Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.', CC No.92 of 2024 decided on 26.05.2025 [by the Principal Bench of the State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh], the Principal Commission has already decided the identical issues as have been raised in these consumer complaints. As such, we decide the aforesaid issues in similar manner as under:-
One open on surface parking 12
22. Coming to the relief claimed qua providing one open parking space other than the one already provided, it may be stated here that it is clearly coming out from Explanation 1.2 (iv) of the Terms of respective agreements that the opposite parties have committed to provide one open on surface parking. It may be stated here that during arguments, it has been argued by counsel for the opposite parties that the complainants have already been provided one covered parking in basement, as such, they are not entitled for second parking in open on surface parking. We do not agree with these arguments because once it has been clearly promised by the opposite parties vide Clause G, Clause 1.2(iv) and Clause 1.9 of the terms of respective agreements that they will provide one open on surface parking and the same shall be treated as a single indivisible unit for all purposes, now they cannot wriggle out of the same and are legally bound to provide the same. By not providing one open on surface parking, the opposite parties are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice. Maintenance charges:-
23. Now coming to the relief sought by the complainants directing the opposite parties to stop charging maintenance charges till the time, occupation certificate is obtained from the competent authorities, it may be stated here that perusal of Annexure C-1 reveals that numerous basic amenities were to be provided at the project site. However, from perusal of contents of these complaints and the reliefs sought for by the complainants and also from the findings/observations narrated above, it can easily be said that the complainants are aggrieved of only non issuance of occupation certificate and non providing of one open on surface parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement and in two complaints bearing Nos.45 of 2025 & 50 of 2025, non provision of a lift in the tower(s) having capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person.
24. It may be stated here that in case 'Keshav Bansal vs. Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.' (supra), the Commission (Principal Bench) held as under:-
"18. Now coming to the relief sought by the complainants directing the opposite parties to stop charging maintenance charges till the time, occupation certificate is obtained from the 13 competent authorities, it may be stated here that perusal of Annexure C-1 reveals that numerous basic amenities were to be provided at the project site. However, from perusal of contents of these complaints and the reliefs sought for by the complainants and also from the findings/observations narrated above, it can easily be said that the complainants are aggrieved of only non issuance of occupation certificate and non providing of one open on surface parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement. It is coming out of the record that Partial Completion Certificate was granted to opposite party No.1 - M/s Credo Private Limited the Municipal Council, Kharar vide letter bearing No.786 dated 01.06.2018 subject to various conditions including fulfillment of provision of rainwater harvesting and S.T.P, which would be the sole responsibility of the opposite party. Further Permission qua Change of Land Use was granted to opposite party No.1 vide order No.23988 dated 05.12.2018 subject to fulfillment of numerous conditions including obtaining of required permissions as per building rules before commencement of building operations in the areas; making of provisions of rainwater harvesting; disposal of sewerage & solid waste management etc. Further, the Certificate of registration as a Promoter was issued in favour of opposite party No.1 vide Letter No.22639 dated 02.09.2019 subject to fulfillment of various conditions, which was valid till 01.09.2024. Further order No.22 dated 02.09.2019 was also issued to this extent subject to fulfillment of numerous conditions like statutory compliances, air & water quality monitoring and preservation and waste management etc., by the opposite parties. It is coming out of documents placed on record by the opposite parties themselves that they were issued NOC for Construction of Building by HQ Western Air Command, Indian Air Force, New Delhi on 26.07.2023. It is apparent from this NOC that it was in reference to application dated 04.05.2023 of the opposite parties for grant of such NOC. Further it is apparent from letter bearing No.4232-34 dated 26.04.2024 issued by Drainage-cum-Mining & Geology Circle, Department of Water Resources, Punjab in favour of opposite party No.1 that in reference to application for grant of NOC from Drainage Department, Punjab, it was informed that no such NOC was required, however, certain conditions were required to be fulfilled to set up residential project. Not only this, the 14 Undertaking Certificate dated 01.08.2024, appended by the complainants as Annexure C-6, clearly transpires that this undertaking certificate was given by opposite party No.1 to complete the all pending fire fighting works relating to the project such as installation of pumps, diesel engine, pipeline or any other accessories, will be completed by 31st August 2024. Thus, it is very much clear that the opposite parties have offered possession of the unit to the complainants vide the alleged Possession Letter dated 26.09.2022 in the absence of working fire-fighting system. Be that as it may, though occupation certificate has still not been received by the opposite parties and also one open on surface parking space has not been allocated to the complainants, yet, it should also not be forgotten that the complainants are in possession of their respective units since long and are enjoying the basic facilities/amenities and for maintaining and up keeping of those facilities/amenities, the opposite parties would have definitely been spending amount thereupon. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in mind the principle of fair and equity, if we order the opposite parties to refund 30% of the maintenance charges received by them from all the complainants in these cases that will meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, held that the complainants are entitled to get refund of 30% of the maintenance charges paid by them to opposite parties from the date of payment thereof. However, the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till one open parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement is provided and also occupation certificate is received from the competent authorities."
We, therefore, decide the issue qua maintenance charges on same lines as extracted above. In these consumer complaints, it is held that the complainants are entitled to get refund of 30% of the maintenance charges paid by them to opposite parties from the date of payment thereof. However, the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till one open parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement is provided and also occupation certificate is received from the competent authorities.
Issue qua Service Lift - CC/45/2025 & CC/50/2025.
1525. The issue qua service lift, had been dealt with by the Principal Bench of this Commission in the case of Gurpreet Singh & Anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.' (supra), in Para 22, as under:-
"22. First coming to the relief claimed by the complainants qua service lift in the tower in question so that in case of any medical emergency, patient can be brought down through it, it may be stated here this demand made by the complainants on the basis of one notification dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-3 having been issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Town Planning Wing. Before adjudicating this issue, it is significant to mention here that it is an admitted fact that two lifts, in working conditions, are already installed in the tower in question. It is clearly coming out from the said notification that some amendments/additions/modification have been made by the Government of Punjab, which was to come into effect from the date of notification i.e. 31.12.2019. At the same time, in the brochures placed on record, there is nothing on record that over and above these lifts, any extra service lift was promised by the opposite parties to be provided in the tower in question. No doubt, the demand of extra service lift to be provided in the tower(s) in question based on the basis of notification dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-4, is genuine but the factual position is that the building has already been constructed and the lift(s) provided therein did not match the required criteria fixed under the said notification, which says that one lift in the towered group housing buildings shall have the capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person. In our concerted view, the opposite parties should explore the possibility of providing a service lift in the tower(s) having the capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person and specification in consonance with notification dated 31.12.2019. However, in the meanwhile, the opposite parties are directed to provide adequate arrangements like compatible stretcher, wheel chair etc. to cater to the needs of the residents of the project, in case of any medical emergency."
In the instant case, same notification dated 31.12.2019 has been placed on record by the complainant and relying thereupon, the demand for a service lift having capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person has been raised 16 by the complainants. This Commission adopts similar view, as has been held by the Principal Bench in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra), in these consumer complaints also. Accordingly, here also, the opposite parties shall explore the possibility of providing a service lift in the tower(s) having the capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person and specification in consonance with notification dated 31.12.2019. However, in the meanwhile, the opposite parties are directed to provide adequate arrangements like compatible stretcher, wheel chair etc. to cater to the needs of the residents of the project in case of any medical emergency.
Limitation:-
26. Now coming to the argument addressed by the Counsel for the opposite parties that since possession of the respective units has already been taken over by the complainants and also sale deeds have been executed, as such, now these complaints are barred by limitation, it may be stated here that in the present cases, it has been proved by the complainants that occupation certificate in respect of the units in question has not been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities. If that is so, the argument raised is bereft of merit in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103, wherein, it was held that continuous failure to obtain occupancy certificate is continuing wrong, therefore, complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. As such, reliance placed by the Counsel for the opposite parties on State Bank of India Vs. M/s B. S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 388, is of no help to the opposite parties.
27. Now coming to the argument of the Counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that since the complainants never approached them for appointment of an Adjudicating Officer for redressal of their grievance and as such, these complaints deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone, it may be stated here that this contention deserves to be rejected out-rightly being not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, there is nothing on record that the grievances of the complainants were ever redressed by the opposite 17 parties by appointing some Adjudicating Officer in the matter, which had ultimately forced the complainants to file these complaints. In this view of the matter, the complainants were well within their right to file these consumer complaints and as such, the contention of the Counsel stands rejected.
Relief granted by this Commission:-
28. For the reasons recorded above, all these complaints bearing Nos.43 of 2025, 44 of 2025, 45 of 2025, 46 of 2025, 47 of 2025, 48 of 2025, 49 of 2025 and 50 of 2025 are partly accepted with costs against the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally, in each of these complaints, directed as under:-
i) to provide one open on surface parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement to the respective complainants and also to rectify the defects of seepage and cracks, if any, and also to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay to the respective complainant(s), compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the respective complainant(s) against the respective units in question, from the date of default, till realization.
ii) to refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by them from the respective complainant(s) against their respective units in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the entire accumulated amount i.e. 30% of the maintenance charges already received, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till compliance of direction given at Sr. No.1 above.18
iii) to pay to the complainant(s) lumpsum compensation to the tune of ₹75,000/- [Rupees Seventy Five Thousand] (in each case) for mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of ₹35,000/- [Rupees Thirty Five Thousand] (in each case) to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
29. Pending applications, if any, in all these complaints also stand disposed of accordingly.
30. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith and copy thereof be also placed in the connected case files.
31. Files be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced.
31.12.2025 [PADMA PANDEY] PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 19