State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Neena Choudhary on 9 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.564 of 2025
Date of Institution : 15.07.2025
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Date of Decision : 09.12.2025
1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA
Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab, through its Estate
Officer.
2. Estate Officer of PUDA (Punjab Urban Planning and
Development Authority), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
........Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
Versus
1. Neena Choudhary W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Choudhary, R/o
House No.2614, Sector 40C, Chandigarh-160036.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Chief Administrator of PUDA (Punjab Urban Planning and
Development Authority), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
3. Chief Administrator of GMADA (Greater Mohali Area
Development Authority), Mohali Bypass Road, Sector 62, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
4. Punjab National Bank, SCO 37, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh,
through its Branch Head.
.....Respondents No.2-4/Opposite Parties No.3-5
First Appeal under Section 41 of
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting
aside the order dated 21.11.2024 passed
by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar,
Mohali in Consumer Complaint No.155 of
2022.
2
First Appeal No.564 of 2025
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member Present:-
For the Appellants : Sh. Chahat Goyal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Sh. Umang Bansal, Advocate For Respondents No.2&3: Service dispensed with vide Order dated 17.09.2025 For Respondent No.4 : None
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 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, i.e. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, SAS Nagar Mohali and another have filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short the "District Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2022, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.
2. There was delay of 60 days in filing of the Appeal. I.A. No.882 of 2025 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal which was supported by an affidavit. The delay of 60 days in filing the 3 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 Appeal was condoned vide order dated 30.07.2025 subject to cost of Rs.3000/- to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the same was deposited on 14.08.2025. M.A. was disposed off accordingly.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the OPs is not delivering the possession of the plot in time had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-
"(i) Allow claim from Opposite Party no.1 @18% interest per annum on the total cost of the plot i.e. Rs.5389860/- (Fifty Three Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) with effect from March 2018 le the date of final payment of the plot amount made to opposite party no.1 by the complainant, for delaying in demarcation and approval of map (Plot no. 280 at Sector 118-119, Gateway City. Sector 118-
119, Gateway City, Mohali); and
(ii) Allow Claim from Opposite Party no. 1 of penal Interest charged (i.e 2% w.e.f 20.03.2021 onwards) by the opposite party no. 5 on account lapse of construction period (i.e 3 years from the sanctioned date of loan) and other charges if any claimed by opposite party no 5; and 4 First Appeal No.564 of 2025
(iii) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 37,99,809 [thirty seven lacs ninty nine thousand eight hundred nine] @ 18% interest per annum on the total cost of the plot i.e. Rs 5389860/-(Fifty Three Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) with effect from March 2018 i.e the date of final payment of the plot amount made to PUDA by the complainant till the handing over the possession of the plot, demarcation of the plot and approval of map by PUDA.
(iv) Pay to the Complainant a sum equivalent to the amount [i.e @2% w.e.f 20.03.2021 onwards of rupees 49,00,000/-(plot loan amount) till handing over the possession of plot, demarcation of plot and approval of map by PUDA] a Penal Interest to be charged by opposite party no 5, alongwith a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as Compensation for Deficiency in Services and Unfair Trade Practice for selling a disputed plot to complainant, harassment and mental agony alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- as Litigation Expenses alongwith Interest at rate of 18% per annum from the date of lodging of the Claim till actual payment.
AND For granting any other relief, in addition to or in alternative of the reliefs already claimed, which this 5 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."
4. Upon issuing notices in the said Complaint to the OPs, they had appeared through Counsel and filed reply/written versions. Certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were controverted.
5. By considering the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereof as well as the oral arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the documents available on record, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint. The relevant part of the order as mentioned in para 8 of the order dated 21.11.2024 is reproduced as under :-
"8. Consequently, keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we partly allow the complaint and direct OP No.1 and 2 to handover the possession of alternate plot of similar size i.e. measuring 256.66 sq. yards in Gateway City, Sector 118-119, SAS Nagar (Mohali) to the Complainant as per the rate of plot in question, with developed roads, sewer, water and electricity lines etc. complete in all respect, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order. OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay interest @9% per 6 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 annum on the amount deposited by the complainant with OP no.1 from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 26.03.2018 till handing over of possession of the alternative plot to the complainant. OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses."
6. Mr. Chahat Goyal Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the District Commission had failed to observe that there was an Arbitration Clause in the Contract and the dispute between the parties could have been referred to the Arbitrator but the Complaint was filed. Learned Counsel has further submitted that on account of alleged delay in delivery of the possession of the plot, the Complaint was required to be filed by the Complainant within a period of two years from the date of possession i.e. 28.03.2018 and beyond said date, no Complaint was maintainable. However, the District Commission had not taken into consideration this material fact. Learned Counsel has further submitted that Complainant was not the 'Consumer' for the purpose of Section 2(7) of the Act as the plot was allotted to the Complainant and nothing was mentioned in the Complaint that it was for the personal use of the Complainant. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Respondent No.1/Complainant had never applied for the possession of the plot in accordance with the terms and conditions and they were free to raise the construction over the plot after getting the building plan approved 7 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 from the concerned office of the Appellants. Learned Counsel has also submitted that since the Respondent No.1/Complainant had not come forward to obtain physical possession of the plot by applying for demarcation and approval of building plan and as such the possession of the plot was deemed to have been delivered to the Respondent No.1/Complainant as per the allotment letter dated 26.09.2016. Further, it has been submitted that the District Commission had awarded interest @9% and had also awarded Rs.60,000/- for causing mental harassment and litigation, which is on excessive side. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the District Commission had over looked the material fact that the Respondent No.1/Complainant himself had not come forward to take the possession in accordance with Clause 4 of the Allotment Letter. Further, the District Commission had not appreciated the material fact that there was no Complaint or any representation on delay in filing the Complaint. Further, it has been submitted that the District Commission had also not taken into consideration that the price of the plot had increased manifold still the interest has been awarded which can be said to be a case of unjust enrichment of the Complainant. The time was not the essence and the Complainant was not entitled to any interest amount. Learned Counsel has relied upon judgments, i.e. "Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank" (2007) 6 SCC 711, "HUDA Vs. Raje Ram" (2008) 17 SCC 407, "Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes (P) Ltd." (2020) 16 SCC 512, "DLF Homes Developers Ltd. Vs. 8 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 Capital Green Flat Buyer Association" (2021) 5 SCC 537, "R.V. Prasannakumaar Vs. Mantri Castles (P) Ltd." (2020) 14 SCC 769, "Sanjay Gupta & another Vs. Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & another" 2020 SCC online NCDRC 178 and so on, in support of his oral arguments.
7. Sh. Umang Bansal Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellants. He has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of facts and law and detailed findings have been recorded by taking into consideration the contents of Complaint and reply thereof and no interference is required therein. Learned Counsel has relied upon judgments, i.e. "National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy" (2012) 2 SCC 506, "Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh" (2019) 12 SCC 751, "Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta"
(2012) 4 SCC 392, "HUDA Vs. B.K. Sood" I (2006) CPJ 3 (NC) and "Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Limited" 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1118 and so on in support of his oral arguments.
8. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission as well as the relevant documents/evidence available on record.
9First Appeal No.564 of 2025
9. Facts relating to filing of Complaint, Reply thereof, documents produced by both the parties, passing of impugned order by the District Commission and thereafter filing of Appeal by the Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 before this Commission are not in dispute.
10. As per the case of the Complainant even on paying full amount of sale consideration the OPs had not developed the site and had also failed to deliver the possession of the plot with all basic amenities. The Appellants have not produced any document regarding offering of possession to the Complainant before the District Commission as well as before this Commission. Not only the possession of the plot was handed over to the Complainant but even the demarcation was not done as such it is a case of continuous cause of action till the possession of the plot. No satisfactory explanation has come on record to explain the unexplained delay. Even the Appellants had not informed the Complainant about the pending litigation of the said land. The Hon'ble National Commission in case of "Navin Sharma (Dr. ) & others v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." 2016(2) CLT 457 has held that unless or until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. In para 8 of the said judgment it has been observed by the Hon'ble National Commission as under:-
"8. The first submission made by the counsel for the opposite party was that the case is barred by time. This argument was raised merely for the sake of cavil. It is now well settled that unless or until the complainants get the 10 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. This view finds support from this authority reported in "Raghava Estates Ltd. v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association" Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012."
In view of above discussion and judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, we are of the opinion that the Complaint was filed by the Complainant within the period of limitation.
11. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the Appellants that there is an Arbitration Clause in the Agreement and the District Commission has no jurisdiction to try the Complaint and the Complainant should/could have approached the Arbitrator instead of filing Complaint before the District Commission. It is relevant to mention here that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in judgment of case "Aftab Singh Versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr." Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017, has held as under:-
"An Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the complainants and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 titled as "M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh" filed by the builder against said order was dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. The Review Petitions (C) Nos.2629-2630/2018 11 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 filed by the builder were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 10.12.2018. Consequently, the existence of an Arbitration Clause in the Agreement is not a bar to resolution of dispute by the District Commission.
12. It is also the argument of learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Complainant is not 'Consumer' as he had not pleaded that he had purchased the said plot for residential purpose. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellants had invited the Applications from general public for residential plots in their project. The Appellants had not produced any documents to prove that the Complainant was doing the work of selling and purchasing the plots for gaining purpose. The Complainant had purchased the plot in question after obtaining loan from the Bank for residential purposes and Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 had failed to rebut this version of the Complainant by leading any cogent evidence. There is no force in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the same is hereby rejected.
13. It is also the arguments of the Appellant that the interest awarded by the District Commission is on higher side. The District Commission had awarded interest @ 9% per annum in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment of case, i.e. "The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board (A MHADA Unit) & others Vs. Manohar Burde" SLP (Civil) No.3802 of 2024, decided on 26.03.2025 has held that interest @ 12 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 9% p.a., is fair and reasonable. The relevant part of said judgment is reproduced as under :-
"xxx However, the issue in the instant case relates to allotment of a 3 BHK flat after payment of sale consideration and delay in delivery of same. As such, the NCDRC considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, had awarded interest @ 9% p.a., which in our view was fair and reasonable. The interest @ 15% p.a. awarded by High Court is excessive. Therefore, the impugned order hereby is set aside and the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by NCDRC in so far as it relates to award of interest @ 9% on the respective deposit till the date of actual payment is restored."
In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest @ 9% per annum is fair and reasonable and no interference is required in the order passed by the District Commission. The District Commission had reasonably awarded Rs.50,000/- towards causing mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. The judgments relied upon by the Appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. In view of the reasons and above discussion as well as judgments, we find no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the Appellants. Accordingly, the present Appeal being 13 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 devoid of any merit is dismissed finding no infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the District Commission and as such the order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
15. The Appellants/OPs had deposited an amount Rs.19,59,927/- at the time of filing the Appeal with this Commission and further deposited an amount of Rs.19,59,926/- in compliance of order passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The Parties may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
16. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER December 09, 2025 (MM)