State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Brajesh Kumar Sharma vs M/S Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. ... on 27 February, 2026
CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 03.10.2018
Date of hearing: 16.12.2025
Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1294/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA,
S/O LATE SHRI M.L.SHARMA,
PRESENTLY AT: SIDDHIVINAYAK APPARTMENT,
FLAT NO. 3, F.F. C-BLOCK, PLOT-115-A/1,
DESU ROAD, MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI 110030.
ALSO AT:
JWALA APPARTMENT FLAT NO.1, G.F.
PLOT 237 WARD-2 MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI 110030.
(Through: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT.LTD,
THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR,
A-16/B-1, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MAIN MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110044.
OFFICE ADDRESS ALSO AT:
PIYUSH GLOBAL-I, (IST FLOOR) PLOT NO-5,
YMCA CHOWK NH-2, NEAR ESCORT MUJESAR
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 9
CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
METRO STATION MAIN MATHURA ROAD,
FARIDABAD, HARYANA - 121 006.
VERIFIED ADDRESS:
M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR/S,
1ST FLOOR, SCF- 48, SECTOR - 7, HUDDA MARKET,
ABOVE SWANAND VIKRIYA KENDRA, NEAR DEEPAK CLOTH HOUSE,
FARIDABAD - 121006, HARYANA, INDIA
(Through: Mr. Nikunj Jain, Advocate)
...Opposite Party
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: None.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been returned from the District Commission vide order 12.09.2018 on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that respondents be directed to pay Principal amount of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest @ 11% p.a. from the receipt date of Complainant's invested amount along with Compensation to the complainants on account of ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
negligence as well as deficiency in the services on the part of the Respondents;
The complainants may please be compensated for loss of time, mental agony and torture and litigation expenses, as a result of sufferings and pains of the complainants and; Any other relief this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper may be passed against the Respondents and in favour of the complainants."
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant vide application form dated 23.10.2012 booked a 450 sq. ft. studio apartment during the pre/soft launch of the project of the Opposite Party and paid a booking amount of Rs.3,15,000/- on 23.10.2012. As per the terms and conditions of the said application form, the Opposite Party was to allot a unit within 15 months from the date of investment. However, the Opposite Party neither launched the project nor allotted any unit/apartment to the Complainant till date.
3. Furthermore, the Complainant was entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest @ 11% per annum in case the Opposite Party failed to allot a unit within 15 months as per the terms and conditions aforesaid application form. However, the Opposite Party paid interest only for the years 2014 and 2015. Thereafter, the Opposite Party issued post-dated cheques towards interest of year 2016 but the same were returned with the remarks "funds insufficient".
4. The Complainant made several communications to the Opposite Party and requested refund of the principal amount along with interest as no interest was paid to the Complainant after 2015. However, no positive response was ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
received from the Opposite Party. As a result, the Complainant issued legal notices dated 16.06.2014, 24.06.2014, 12.09.2016 and 14.02.2017 but the same was of no avail. Hence, the Complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
5. During the course of proceedings before the District Commission, the Opposite Party filed its written statement but the same was filed beyond the stipulated period. Therefore, the District Commission vide order dated 14.08.2018, condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-. However, it is apparent from the order dated 09.09.2024 that the Opposite Party failed to pay the said costs. Moreover, the Opposite Party also failed to appear before this Commission on 21.02.2023, 15.03.2023, 06.07.2023 and 09.09.2024. Consequently, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party was not taken on record. Since the written statement of the Opposite Party was not taken on record, the averments made in the complaint by the Complainant remain unrebutted.
6. The Complainant has filed written arguments and reiterated the allegations made in the present complaint.
7. The Opposite Party failed to file its written arguments despite several opportunities vide orders dated 09.09.2024, 28.11.2024, 04.02.2025 and 24.09.2025. Therefore, the right of the Opposite Party to file written arguments was closed by this Commission vide order dated 05.08.2025.
8. We have perused the material available before us.
9. The fact that the Complainant booked a unit in the pre/soft launch project of the Opposite Party by paying Rs.3,15,000/- evident from the from the application dated 23.10.2012 attached with the present complaint.
ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026
MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
10. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainant. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation."
11. The above dicta reflects that „deficiency‟ means any fault, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the manner of performance of a service, which the service provider is required to maintain under law or has undertaken to perform under a contract.
12. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Clause 1 of the terms and conditions of the application form dated 23.10.2012, which is reproduced as under:
"1. That the offer of allotment for a unit shall be made to me within 15 months from the date of my investment with you, as far as possible. However:
i. request the Company for refund before expiry of the above said 15 months then I shall be entitled to refund of principal amount only, after launch of the project.
(ii) If Company rejects my application before expiry of above said 15 months then I shall be entitled to refund of my principal ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
amount. The Company need not to specify any reason for such rejection. Interest @11% p.a. shall be paid by the Company for the period my amount remains unpaid, after acceptance of refund application on Company format.
iii. If even after 15 months, the Company is unable to offer me allotment for a unit in its projects then I shall be entitled to take refund of my investment alongwith interest @11% p.a. from the receipt date of my invested amount."
13. From the above, it is clear that the Opposite Party was bound to allot a unit to the Complainant within 15 months from the date of receipt of the booking amount. However, no allotment has been made by the Opposite Party till date.
14. We also deem it appropriate to refer to First Appeal no. 344/2016 titled as Vibhor Vaibhav Infrahome Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Azam Ali and Ors. decided on 20.07.2020, wherein the Hon‟ble NCDRC has held as under:-
"13. It was the responsibility of the appellant to have issued the allotment letter after booking was made by the complainant, however, the same was not issued by the OPs. As there as no allotment letter issued and the money paid only remains as booking amount, the complainants are entitled to refund of the same."
15. The above dicta reflect that it is the responsibility of the Opposite Party to issue an allotment letter after the booking is made by the Complainant. If the Opposite Party fails to issue the same, the Complainant is entitled to refund of the booking amount.
16. Further, it has been well settled that the Complainant cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of the hard-earned money which they have spent in order to purchase the property in question (Ref:
Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima reported at (2018) 5 SCC 442).
17. Furthermore, it is clear that the Complainant is entitled to interest @ 11% p.a. from the date of receipt of the booking amount in case of failure of the ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
Opposite Party to allot a unit within 15 months as per the terms and conditions of the application form. However, the Opposite Party failed to give interest for the initial 15 months from the date receipt issued by it towards the allotment. More so, the Opposite Party has only paid interest @ 11% for the years 2014 and 2015 and no interest has been paid to the Complainant thereafter.
18. Consequently, we hold the Opposite Party deficient in providing its services to the Complainant due to its failure to issue an allotment letter till date and failure to refund the amount along with interest @ 11% p.a. as per the terms and conditions of the application form dated 23.10.2012.
19. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the settled law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant, i.e., Rs. 3,15,000/-, along with simple interest @ 11% p.a., after adjusting the interest already paid to the Complainant, as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @11% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 27.02.2026 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 27.04.2026; C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 27.04.2026, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 13% ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 9 CC/ 1294/2018 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026 MR. BRAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.
p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
20. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of:
A. Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
21. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
22. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
23. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
27.02.2026 LR-ZA ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 9