National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mr. Ganesh Rajmal Pallerla S/O. Agm/ S N ... vs Teirth Developers And Suyojit ... on 3 November, 2025
t
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 18.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.11.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2025
(From the order dated 30.09.2024 in CC No. 13/500 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai )
With IA/7551-7553 of 2025
( c/d, exemption for filing translation documents, exemption from filing trial
records)
Mr. Pramod Suresh Patil Appellant (s)
Residing at A/P Khamni,
District Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh-450445
Versus
1. Teirth Developers and Suyojit ... Respondent(s)
Infrastructure Ltd.
A Joint Venture having its office at
Teerth Technospace, C Wing, 7th Floor
Behind Mercedes Benz showroom, Mumbai Bangalore hwy
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra 411 045
2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Proprietor of sole proprietory concern
Teirth Developers
Residing at Row House No-F3,
Shreenath Hermitage, Pashan,
Pune-411008
3. Suyojiy Infrastructure Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
Company's Act, 1956 having its Office at
F-1/2, Suyojit Heights, Opp Rajiv Gandhi
Bhavan Sharanpur Road Nashik
FIRST APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2025
(From the order dated 30.09.2024 in CC No. 13/501 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai )
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 1 of 17
MR. KUSHAL KUMAR WAS
Residing at A1-2103,
Nyati Elysia, Riverside Road, Kharadi
Pune-411 014 ...Appellant
Versus
1. Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd
A Joint Venture having its office at
Teerth Technospace, C Wing, 7th Floor,
Behind Mercedes Benz showroom, Mumbai Bangalore hwy,
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra 411 045
2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Proprietor of sole proprietory concern
Teirth Developers
Residing at Row House No-F3,
Shreenath Hermitage, Pashan,
Pune-411008
3. Suyojiy Infrastructure Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
Company's Act, 1956 having its Office at
F-1/2, Suyojit Heights, Opp Rajiv Gandhi
Bhavan Sharanpur Road Nashik
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2025
(From the order dated 30.09.2024 in CC No. 13/510 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai )
MR. MANOJ JOHN
Residing at Flat No. C-106
Aarohi Society, Vidya Valley Road,
Sus Gaon Pune-411021 Appellant
Versus
1. Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd
A Joint Venture having its office at
Teerth Technospace, C Wing, 7th Floor,
Behind Mercedes Benz showroom,
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 2 of 17
Mumbai Bangalore hwy,
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra 411 045
2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Proprietor of sole proprietory concern
Teirth Developers
Residing at Row House No-F3,
Shreenath Hermitage, Pashan,
Pune-411008
3. Suyojiy Infrastructure Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
Company's Act, 1956 having its Office at
F-1/2, Suyojit Heights, Opp Rajiv Gandhi
Bhavan Sharanpur Road Nashik
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2025
(From the order dated 30.09.2024 in CC No. 13/508 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai )
Bhagwat Dashrath Rokade
Flat No. D-704
Aarohi CHS, Vidya Valley Road Appellant
Sus Gaon, Pune-Maharashtra-411021
Versus
1. Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd
A Joint Venture having its office at
Teerth Technospace, C Wing, 7th Floor,
Behind Mercedes Benz showroom,
Mumbai Bangalore hwy,
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra 411 045
2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Proprietor of sole proprietory concern
Teirth Developers
Residing at Row House No-F3,
Shreenath Hermitage, Pashan,
Pune-411008
3. Suyojiy Infrastructure Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
Company's Act, 1956 having its Office at
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 3 of 17
F-1/2, Suyojit Heights, Opp Rajiv Gandhi
Bhavan Sharanpur Road Nashik
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2025
(From the order dated 30.09.2024 in CC No. 13/506 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai )
Haresh Murlidha Chimanpure &
Ms.Madhuri Haresh Chimanpure
D-301
Aarohi CHS, Vidya Valley Road Appellant
Sus Gaon, Pune-Maharashtra-411021
Versus
1. Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd
A Joint Venture having its office at
Teerth Technospace, C Wing, 7th Floor,
Behind Mercedes Benz showroom,
Mumbai Bangalore hwy,
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra 411 045
2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Proprietor of sole proprietory concern
Teirth Developers
Residing at Row House No-F3,
Shreenath Hermitage, Pashan,
Pune-411008
3. Suyojiy Infrastructure Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
Company's Act, 1956 having its Office at
F-1/2, Suyojit Heights, Opp Rajiv Gandhi
Bhavah Sharanpur Road Nashik
...Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2025
(From the order dated 30.09.2024 in CC No. 13/520 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai )
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 4 of 17
J; .
1. Ganesh Rajmal Pallerla
2. Ponam Ganesh Pallerla
A-21, Row House-21, Aarohi Co-op Housing Society
Vidya Valeey School Road, Near Parkhe Vasti
Sus Gaon, Pune, Maharashtra Appellant
Versus
1. Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd
A Joint Venture having its office at
Teerth Technospace, C Wing, 7th Floor,
Behind Mercedes Benz showroom,
Mumbai Bangalore hwy,
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra 411 045
2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Proprietor of sole proprietory concern
Teirth Developers
Residing at Row House No-F3,
Shreenath Hermitage, Pashan,
Pune-411008
3. Suyojiy Infrastructure Ltd.
A Company incorporated under the
Company's Act, 1956 having its Office at
F-1/2, Suyojit Heights, Opp Rajiv Gandhi
Bhavan Sharanpur Road Nashik
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Appellant(s) Ms. Kshitij Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Kunal Cheema, Advocate
Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Advocate
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 5 of 17
•c ,
DR.INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
ORDER
1. The present First Appeals (FAs) have been filed by the Appellants against Respondents as detailed above, under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the common order dated 30.09.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') praying for:-
In FA No. 314, 315, 317, 318 and 320 of 2025
(i) Directing the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.28,40,000/- ( in FA No. 314 of 2025), Rs.32,21,378/- ( in FA No. 315 of 2025), Rs.36,87,658/- ( in FA No. 317 of 2025), Rs.31,70,257/- ( in FA No. 318 of 2025) and Rs.35,95,000/- ( in FA No. 320 of 2025) on account of delayed possession and incomplete amenities.
(ii) Directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.65,06,260/- to the Society as expenses incurred for lift.
(iii) Directing the respondents to provide parking to the appellant as was promised in the booking apartment as per the sanctioned plan and also to provide all the amenities of premium quality and facilities.In FA No. 321 of 2025
(i) Directing the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.76,57,520/- on account of delayed possession and incomplete amenities.
(ii) Directing the respondents to compensate the Appellant for reduction in the garden area as was promised in the booking agreement and as per the Sanctioned Plan.FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 6 of 17
2. While the Appellants were Complainants before the State Commission, the Respondents were opposite parties before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 20.06.2025 . Parties filed Written Arguments on 29.09.2025 ( Appellant) and 25.09.2025 ( Respondent).
3. As issues / law points and opposite parties involved are the same in these FA(s), these are taken up together, with FA No. 314 of 2025 as lead case . For sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before District Forum.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that complainants approached the OP for purchase of flats under the name and style as 'Aarohi'. The complainants decided to purchase the flat in the aforesaid scheme and a flat booking agreement was executed between the complainant and OP. The OP agreed to provide the following amenities to the complainant:
a. Piped gas for all apartments, raw houses, bungalows b. Garbage chutes c. Water treatment plant d. Rain water harvesting e. Shopping complex f. One covered car parking for all flats g. Play area for children h. One passenger lift and one service lift i. Office and warehouse space for the society management j. Religious hall k. Club house with FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 7 of 17 Two tennis courts One basket ball court One badminton court Swimming pool for adults and children Kids sitting area Party garden Multipurpose room with cards table Dinning facility Private theatre Gymnasium Table Tennis and Pool tables One squash court (I) Adequate number of open parking for visitors
(m) Fencing for row houses and bungalows
(n) Open area / garden at common places in society as well as for row houses and bungalows to be laid with lawn.
(o) Play are / lawn needs to be on the same plane and should not have contour.
(P) Generator for emergency power supply.
5. It is the case of the complainant that OP failed to provide the said facilities and there is delay in handing over possession of the flats / bungalows as agreed in the agreement. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed Complaint before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 30.09.2024 partly allowed the complaint. Therefore, the Appellant is before us now in the present FA.FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 8 of 17
6. Appellant(s) have challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(D State Commission erred by not considering that the Respondents herein did not provide amenities and facilities as was agreed between the parties in the agreement.
(ii) State Commission erred by not granting the right reliefs to the Appellant despite observing that the Appellant are entitled for compensation towards the failure on the part of the Respondent to provide amenities and facilities.
(iii) State Commission erred by not considering that similarly situated parties ought to be treated similarly under law.
(iv) State Commission erred by not considering that the interest granted to other similarly situated people is 18 percent whereas only 12 percent has been granted to the Appellant herein.
(v) State Commission erred by not considering at the time of granting relief that amenities such as parking has still not been provided to the Appellant which amount to continuing breach of the agreement between the parties.
(vi) State Commission erred by not considering that 100 percent of the consideration was paid to the Respondents, still the property was not handed over to the Appellant.
(vii) State Commission erred in failing to consider that relief ought to have been granted to the Appellant herein for the delay in handing over the possession of the property as such delay has caused severe injustice both mentally and financially to the Appellant.
(viii) State Commission ought to have considered the observation of the Co-Ordinate Benches before passing of the Impugned Order in order to ensure that sufficient relief is granted to the Appellant FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 9 of 17 herein after the injury that has been caused because of the acts of the Respondents herein.
(ix) State Commission erred to have not considered the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases that flat buyers ought to be compensated for the deficiency of service on the part of the builder, which is the case herein.
7. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FA, based on their FA/Reply, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
7.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.02.2008 was executed and necessary building plans were sanctioned in 2009 and again in 2016 with material changes made without the Appellant's consent. In terms of Clause 11 of the Agreement the Respondents undertook to deliver possession by 31.12.2011. However, despite receipt of 100% consideration, possession was delayed by an unconscionable period of 46 months, and was eventually handed over only on 20.10.2015, during the pendency of proceedings. Furthermore, several amenities expressly guaranteed under Annexure G of the Agreement remain unprovided to this date. These include piped gas, garbage chutes, water treatment plant, rainwater harvesting, a shopping complex, covered/open parking, passenger and service lifts, dining facility, private theatre, squash court, and potable water. It was also argued that that the list of amenities under Annexure G of the Agreement was also provided by the Appellant herein before the Ld. State Commission in its Complaint for being part of the Agreement and the same has never been disputed by the Respondents herein at any time. Respondents unilaterally altered the scope of the project and carried out structural modifications without FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 10 of 17 obtaining consent of the Appellant. Basic necessities such as potable water connection have not been provided. Further, it is argued that complainant was contractually entitled to parking under the Agreement, the Respondents denied him the same. Shockingly, parking was allotted to another purchaser by way of letter dated 08.05.2018, but the Appellant was singled out and denied his rightful allotment. Matters of safety were also ignored by the Respondents. On 03.02.2017, Pune Metropolitan Municipality issued a letter to the Society pointing out that fire prevention measures were non-functional and that cars were being parked in the side margins, thereby creating a hazardous situation threatening the lives of residents. Similarly situated purchasers of the same project have been granted adequate relief by the State Commission in connected complaints such as CC/13/502 and CC/13/478, CC/14/285, CC/13/477, CC/13/480, CC/13/475. The Appellants despite standing on the same footing and having suffered the same grievances, has been denied parity of relief. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana & Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 512, Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, (2023) 3 SCC 195. It was agreed that between the parties under the MOU that promoter developer shall indemnify and keep indemnified the society and/or its members against all losses, damages, costs, charges, expenses that will be incurred or suffered by the society on account of or arising out of breach of any terms, conditions, representations assurances given by the Promoter/Developer. It is further argued that Appellant has suffered losses under various heads like delay compensation, expenses for alternate water supply, deprivation of parking, loss due to project alterations, loss arising out of lack of proper road, and compensation for mental agony. State Commission, despite recording that the FA314/2025& Connected cases. Page 11 of 17 Respondents had failed to provide the amenities promised, failed to issue any consequential directions.
7.2 Learned counsel for the respondent argued that findings of the State Commission that no amenities have been provided is not correct since the order of the State Commission did not consider the case of the respondents that they have specifically pleaded and proved that all the amenities have been provided. Further, proceedings in the complaint were of year 2013 when the project was under final stages of completion and the Completion Certificate was granted during the pendency of the complaint and possession was also taken during pendency. The complainant did not amend his complete to update its status and facts regarding subsequent developments and hence the pleadings will have to be looked at from the angle of the facts as stated before the Completion was granted. Therefore, allegation of lack of facilities / amenities was pre-mature when the complaint was filed. The State Commission observed that amenities were not provided, but made this finding without referring to pleadings or evidence. Merely because the order is not challenged by the respondents, that would not amount to admitting the correctness of all the findings. It is also argued that Completion Certificate was issued on 03.07.2014 and Possession was first offered on 01.08.2014, and again via email on 24.12.2014, Appellant took possession only on 20.10.2015. Thus, initial burden lies on Appellant to prove amenities were not provided, which then shifts to the Respondents. It is also argued that State Commission granted Rs. 5 lakhs against a claim of Rs. 10 lakhs, which is substantial considering that possession was taken in the year 2015. Further it is argued that in the case of another resident of the same project, the National Commission reduced the same from 5.00 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs considering that possession was taken in year 2014. Once an offer of possession is given after valid OC and a party delays in taking possession, then the said party cannot later claim any compensation for FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 12 of 17 the said delay beyond the date of offer of possession. It is also argued by the counsel for the respondent that in FA No. 1001 of 2023 and connected matters, similar relief was granted by the State Commission and on assailing the order of the State Commission by the respondents, the National Commission reduced the compensation from Rs.5 lacs to Rs.2.5 lakhs where possession was given in year 2014 and compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs was maintained, where complainants did not receive the flats.
8. The main contention of the Appellant(s) herein is that one of the important allegations in their complaint was with respect to OPs not having provided the amenities which have been agreed / promised in the booking agreement and which were listed in para 11 of their complaint. Although, the State Commission took note of these pleadings and came to a finding that there is lack of amenities and facilities as promised by the opponents and hence opponents committed deficiency in service, the State Commission gave no relief with respect to lack of such amenities, either in terms of rectifying the amenities or in terms of any compensation in lieu of lack of such amenities.
The said order of the State Commission was not challenged by the OPs ( respondent herein), hence it has become final against them. Respondents have drawn our attention to their written version before the State Commission in particular para k, in which they have submitted that all the amenities stated in the agreement have been provided at site. They have also drawn our attention to additional affidavit of the OP at para 11.
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 13 of 179. We have carefully considered the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 of the State Commission vide which 17 consumer complaints, including 6 Consumer Complaints connected with the First Appeals covered under this order were decided together. During the hearing, complainant drew our attention to para 11 of their complaint in which it is stated that respondents have not provided the amenities which have been listed in Annexure - G of Flat Booking Agreement. In this para various facilities have been listed, which have already been reproduced in para 4 of this order. These have also been reproduced in para 2 of the order of the State Commission.
10. OP has contended before the State Commission that said project was complete with amenities and the claim of the complainant was wrong and baseless. State Commission framed 4 specific issues for determination and one of the issue was whether Opponents have adopted unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainants. The extract of the relevant para of the State Commission's order is reproduced below :
6. Point No.2 - Whether the opponents have adopted unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainants?
It is contended in the complaint as well as in the evidence of the complainants that all the amenities and facilities have not provided as agreed and there is delay in handing over possession of the flat. The pleadings of the opponents in defense stated that there is not deliberate attempt on the part of the opponent nos. 1 to 3; since there is revised terms and change in the DC Rules therefore there is delay in causing sanctioned plan. It is further contended that the OC has been issued by the competent authority in the year 2013, therefore prior NOC obtained from the FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 14 of 17 Chief Fire Officer and another certificate has been obtained from the competent authority, thereafter Completion Certificate has been obtained by the opponents and offered the complainants to take possession of the respective flats. Therefore, there is not deficiency on the part of the opponents. We have perused the evidence of the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint, the possession have been handed over to the complainants. Admittedly there is delay in handing over the possession of the flat. The complainants have made allegations that opponents have agreed to provide facilities and amenities; but failed to provide the same. The said allegations have been proved by the complainants by way of adducing their evidence.
11. State Commission taking note of various case laws stated in para 7 of its order held that Opponents have failed to provide the possession of the flat / row houses as agreed and there is lack of amenities as promised by the opponents, hence the State Commission concluded the opponents have committed deficiency in service. Extract of relevant para of the State Commission is reproduced below :
From the averments of the affidavit of evidence filed by the complainants in support of their contentions, it is proved that the opponents failed to provide the possession of the flats / row houses as agreed and there is lack of amenities and facilities as promised by the opponents; hence from the law laid down in the abovementioned citations, we come to the conclusion that the opponents have committed deficiency in service and therefore, we answer point no. 2 as affirmative.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Under issue no.3, whether the complainant is entitled for compensation, State Commission passed the following order:
Admittedly, the complainants agreed that they have received the possession of the flats / bungalows and there is delay in FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 15 of 17 handing over the possession of the flats / bungalows therefore the complainants were required to bear Service Tax and VAT. The opponents have also failed to provide amenities and facilities, therefore the complainants are entitled to get compensation towards mental agony and costs of the litigation.
(emphasis supplied)
13. We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission and see merit in the contention of the appellant herein that State Commission despite giving clear finding that there is lack of amenities / facilities as promised, has not passed any order for rectifying such facilities / amenities or gave any compensation in lieu of deficient amenities / facilities. Compensation given in para 3 of the said order is towards mental pain and agony. State Commission after coming to finding that there is lack of amenities / facilities should have specifically taken note of the evidence adduced by both sides before it as to which of the amenities / facilities out of the list out amenities / facilities in para 2 of its order and para 11 of the complaint are lacking and given appropriate directions / relief for rectifying such deficiencies and / or awarded appropriate compensation on account of lack of such facilities / amenities.
14. In view of the foregoing, cases are remanded back to the State Commission for fresh consideration of these aspects. It is made clear that remand to the State Commission is only for limited purpose of specifically adjudicating as to which of the amenities / facilities listed in para 2 of its order are / were lacking and pass appropriate orders / directions with respect to such amenities and I or compensation FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 16 of 17 payable. While deciding the directions with respect to lacking facilities / or compensation in lieu of such lacking facilities, State Commission will be free to review it order with respect to grant of Rs.5.00 lakh compensation for mental pain and agony with a view to ensure that for the same deficiency in service, compensation under multiple heads should not be granted keeping in view the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Dhanda Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. D.S.Dhanda and Ors (2020) 16 SCC 318. Other part of the State Commission order is upheld, especially considering that respondents herein have not challenged the said order of the State Commission and hence binding on them.
15. With above directions / observations, all the 6 FAs are partly allowed and cases are remanded back to the State Commission with directions to revive the corresponding CCs and hear both sides with respect to the above stated aspects. Registrar NCDRC will send copy of this order to the Registrar State Commission immediately to enable the State Commission to issue fresh notice to both sides.
16. The pending lAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(DR.INDER JIT SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
Am/ ( DR SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
MEMBER
FA314/2025& Connected cases Page 17 of 17