Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member and
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Manoj Kumar Gupta – Complainant
versus
ADTV Communication Pvt. Ltd.
(Earlier Known As AEZ Infratech
Pvt. Ltd.) – Opp. Party
Consumer Complaint No.1371 of 2017
Decided on 15.7.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Real estate – Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of possession despite payment – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – There exists palpable deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party – Complainant diligently fulfilled his contractual obligations by making substantial, with legitimate expectation of timely delivery of allotted Flat – However, Opposite Party, in blatant disregard of their own commitments under Flat Buyer’s Agreement, failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period of 36 months – Such inordinate delay without adequate justification constitutes significant breach of terms of Contract, manifesting clear negligence and deficiency of service – Deficiency is further aggravated by conduct of Opposite Party in arbitrarily cancelling allotment after keeping Complainant waiting for nearly a decade – Refund cheque was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds – This act not only reflects irresponsible conduct of Opposite Party but also adds to deficiency in service by subjecting Complainant to severe inconvenience and financial hardship – Records further reveal pattern of non-responsiveness and evasive conduct by Opposite Party throughout proceedings before this Commission – Complainant is rightfully entitled to full refund of entire deposited amount, along with appropriate interest – Opposite Party directed to refund to Complainant entire deposited amount, alongwith 9% interest, as well as litigation costs of Rs.50,000/-. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Result: Consumer Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, and, seeking refund of the deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant applied for a residential apartment in the “Aloha” Housing Project launched by the Opposite Party, located at Sector-57, Gurgaon, Haryana. On 10.10.2005, the Opposite Party issued an Allotment Letter in respect of a 3-Bedroom Apartment bearing Flat No.1001, Tower D-6, on the 10th floor, measuring approximately 2231 Sq. Ft., at a total consideration of Rs.50,85,100/-. The Flat Buyer’s Agreement executed on the same date stipulated that possession would be delivered within 36 months from the date construction commenced. Over the following years, the Complainant made timely payments amounting to Rs.43,52,277/- by April 2013, constituting about 85% of the total consideration. Despite continuous assurances by the Opposite Party, the construction was significantly delayed, and possession was never handed over as promised. Furthermore, despite its own default, the Opposite Party continued making monetary demands and even charged penal interest at 24% per annum for alleged late payments. In May 2016, without any just cause and contrary to their contractual obligations, the Opposite Party unilaterally cancelled the allotment of the Complainant’s flat and issued a cheque of Rs.43,17,790/- as refund. However, this cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, leaving the Complainant without either the flat or the refund. This cancellation and subsequent events constitute deficiency in service and a breach of Contract by the Opposite Party. Aggrieved with the same, he has filed the present Complaint praying as follows:—
“(a) Direct the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.43,52,277/- (Principal Amount) alongwith Rs.68,03,728/- (being the Interest Amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum upto 30.04.2017 with future and pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum upto the date of payment by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
(b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture and Rs.3,00,000/- towards the cost of the present litigation...”
3. The Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide Order dated 30.01.2024 after notice by publication in newspaper was done in compliance of the previous Order. On the subsequent dates of hearing on 12.06.2024 and 11.07.2024, the Counsel for Opposite Party appeared without filing any Vakalatnama on record. It was also submitted by them that settlement has been reached with regard to proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However this claim of settlement was not accepted by the Hon’ble President vide Order dated 11.07.2024. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party on the next date of hearing on 05.11.2024 and thereafter.
4. Evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed by Complainant Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta.
5. Heard Ld. Counsel for Complainant, and perused the material available on record.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has argued that despite multiple attempts, service upon the Opposite Party at various addresses failed. Later, during proceedings in the cheque-bounce matter at Patiala House Courts, the Opposite Party appeared, disclosed its correct address, and offered settlement for both cases (criminal as well as consumer). As per the settlement terms, the Opposite Party agreed to pay Rs.1.00 crore by 15.12.2018 to resolve both disputes. However, the Opposite Party defaulted in making timely payment, rendering the settlement ineffective. The Opposite Party was subsequently proceeded against ex-parte by Order dated 30.01.2024. Hence, the Complainant prays that this Commission may allow the present Consumer Complaint, granting all reliefs against the Opposite Par
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Inordinate delay in possession without adequate justification constitutes significant breach of terms of Contract, manifesting clear negligence and deficiency of service.
Housewife - Complainant is a housewife and there is nothing on record to show that she is engaged in any visible commercial activity.
Indefinite time - Complainant(s) cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and suffer financially.
(1) Possession – Directing possession of the apartment without the requisite certificates would be inappropriate and not in the interest of justice.(2) National Commission – National Commission deter....
Delay in delivery of possession constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Delays in possession of real estate mandate full refund to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Deficiency in services occurs when contractual obligations regarding timely delivery are not met, allowing for consumer redress.
For failure of delivery of possession of flats within the stipulated, refund of amount directed.
Allotment of flat – Flat purchaser cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of his dwelling unit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
