Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shri Krishna Builders & Dev.Elopers ... vs Munnalal Choudhary S/O. Shri Nathuram ... on 5 January, 2026

    IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                           NEW DELHI

                                NC/RP/1636/2025
  (From the order dated 22.09.2025 in FA No. 937 of 2019 of the State Consumer
               Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh)
                                      WITH
                            NC/IA/15492/2025(STAY)
                 NC/IA/15493/2025(CONDONATION OF DELAY)

SHRI KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
(THROUGH PARTNER SHANKAR MANCHHANI,
S/O LATE MOHANDAS MANCHHANI).

HAVING OFFICE AT:
R/O 88, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P) PRESENTLY
R/O OPPOSITE RAILWAY STADIUM, BESIDE STATE
BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, JABALPUR
(M.P.)-482001.                                           Petitioner (s)
                        Versus
1. MUNNALAL CHOUDHARY, S/O SHRI NATHURAM
CHOUDHARY, R/O TENDUKHEDA, DISTRICT DAMOH
(MP).

 2. JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

HAVING OFFICE AT:
BLOCK NO.7-A, MARHATAL, CIVIC CENTER,
MADHYA PRADESH-482001.                                    Respondent(s)

                               NC/RP/1642/2025
  (From the order dated 19.09.2025 in FA No.540 of 2018 of the State Consumer
               Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh)
                                      WITH
                            NC/IA/15526/2025(STAY)

SHRI KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
(THROUGH PARTNER SHANKAR MANCHHANI,
S/O LATE MOHANDAS MANCHHANI).

HAVING OFFICE AT:
R/O 88, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P) PRESENTLY
R/O OPPOSITE RAILWAY STADIUM, BESIDE STATE
BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, JABALPUR

RP/1636/2025 & RP/1642/2025                                       Page 1 of 5
 (M.P.)-482001.                                                    Petitioner (s)
                               Versus
SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL
S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL, R/O H.NO 472,
TAMRHIGH CHOWK, KOTWALI WARD,
JABALPUR (M.P).                                                    Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner(s)          : Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate &
                                 Mr. Kartik S., Advocate &
                                 Mr. Faizan Ali, Advocate

Dated : 05.01.2026
                                   ORDER

RP/1636/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In RP/1636/2025, the challenge is to the orders dated 22.09.2025 of the State Commission, vide which two first appeals, one filed by the complainant and the other filed by the petitioner herein, were taken up together, and the order of the District Commission was slightly modified. The extract of the relevant paragraphs of the State Commission's is reproduced below:

"72. On going through the record, we find that the District Commission after considering overall facts and circumstances of the case has rightly directed the opposite party/appellant-builder to refund the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest but interest is directed to be paid from the date of filing of complaint i.e.05.05.2016 which should have been from the dates of different deposits. Accordingly, we direct the opposite party no. 1-builder to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 8% p.a. i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- paid thrice from the date of deposits i.e. 24.04.2011, 09.08.2012 and 05.10.2012 respectively and remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of its deposit i.e. 04.08.2012. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- and the cost amount is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- from 5,000/-. The opposite party/appellant is directed to pay aforesaid amount within a period of two months.

13. With the aforesaid modifications in the impugned order, both appeals are partly allowed. No order as to cost of these appeals."

3. OP-1, Builder i.e. the petitioner herein, has before the District Commission submitted that OP-2 i.e. Jabalpur Development Authority did not give the requisite NOC, due to which delay in construction was caused. In this regard, the extract of the relevant paragraph of the State Commission's order is reproduced below:

"4. The opposite party no. 1-builder in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the opposite party no.2-the Jabalpur Development Authority (JDA) gave land on lease to the opposite party no. 1-builder to construct multi-storied building, however, on 23.12.2013 the JDA cancelled the allotment of land and did not give NOC due to which delay in construction was caused and this fact was in the knowledge of the complainant. It was also submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and for delay in construction and handing over possession of the agreed flat to the complainant, the opposite party-builder is not liable. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed. "

4. We have carefully considered the orders of the State Commission, the District Commission and other relevant records and contentions of the petitioner herein. In this case, the complainant/ allottee is not at fault. Even if the delay in construction is due to fault on the part of the Jabalpur Development Authority, the complainant/ allottee cannot be made to suffer. Hence, the State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings. The scope in a RP is limited. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld and RP/1636/2025 stands dismissed.

RP/1642/2025

5. In RP/1642/2025, the challenge is to the order dated 19.09.2025 of the State Commission, vide which the first appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the orders of the District Commission was affirmed. It was the case of the petitioner herein that it is only the Jabalpur Development Authority which is responsible, and the State Commission has erroneously leveled the entire burden on the petitioner herein. In this regard, the extract of the relevant paragraphs of the State Commission's order is reproduced below:

"9. From the record, we find that the opposite party/appellant vide notice dated 24.08.2016 gave an offer to the complainant either let the advance amount deposited with the opposite party/appellant and as the dispute with the Jabalpur Development Authority gets resolved, the construction shall be started and the complainant get the booked flat at the same price even upon market price going high on account of inflation or otherwise. In alternative, the complainant was offered to get his advance amount back and cancel the booked flat. Thereafter, the complainant gave notice dated 10.09.2016 to the opposite party/appellant to refund the amount with interest @18% p.a.

10. Thereafter, the opposite party/appellant sent a cheque no.998030 for Rs.3,40,000/- to the complainant, which he received and chose to cancel the booking of the flat and accepted the aforesaid cheque. The grievance of the complainant is that he is entitled to get interest @ 14% on the aforesaid amount as also in case the Jabalpur Development Authority allowed the opposite party/appellant to construct the project and the project is started, he is entitled to get the flat on an old price.

11. On going through the record, we find that the District Commission after considering overall facts and circumstances of the case that since the complainant had accepted the amount and cancelled the agreement, he is not entitled to get the flat at old price in case the construction is started. However, it granted interest @ 8% p.a on the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- from the dates of different deposits."

6. In this case, the petitioner herein has stated in their reply before the District Commission that the Jabalpur Development Authority illegally cancelled the lease deed and, therefore, construction was not started. In this regard, the extract of the relevant paragraph of the State Commission's order is reproduced below:

"3. The opposite party/appellant-builder in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the opposite party refund the booking amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- to the complainant on 20.11.2016 via cheque no.998030 which was received by the complainant and he gave consent for cancellation of agreement executed between the parties. The Jabalpur Development Authority illegally cancelled the lease deed and therefore construction work was not started. Since as per consent of the complainant, the agreement had already cancelled, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any further relief. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed."

.F

7. In this case, the complainant/ allottee is not at fault. Even if the delay in construction is due to fault on the part of the Jabalpur Development Authority, the complainant/ allottee cannot be made to suffer. After careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order, and we do not see any reason to interfere with its findings. The scope in a revision petition is limited. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission. Accordingly, order of the State Commission is upheld. Consequently, RP/1642/2025 is dismissed.

8. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.

9. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.

Sd/-

( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Babita/AB/Bench-3/21 -22 RP/1636/2025 & RP/1642/2025 Page 5 of 5