Back
CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY
Raj Shekhar Attri, President and
Rajesh K. Arya, Member
Jasbir Nizzer – Complainant
versus
Manohar Infrastructure &
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.8 of 2025
Decided on 12.8.2025
For the Complainant:Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties Nos.1 and 2:Ms. Sukriti Kaur, proxy for Ms. Samridhi Goyal, Advocates.
For the Opp. Party No.3: Exparte vide order dated 19.03.2025.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Validity of offer of possession can only be recognized if it is supported by a Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate – There is no legal provision allowing possession to be offered based solely on a Partial Completion Certificate.
(2) Burden to prove service of a communication lies on party who asserts such service, especially when consequences of non-response are severe, as in case of automatic cancellation of allotment of plot.
(3) Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, except one, provided under Section 13(4) of Act and Evidence Act are not applicable to consumer disputes.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 48 – Real estate – Booking of Residential Plot – Additional demand and lack of basic infrastructure – Challenge to contents of GPA and authority letter – Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is a beneficial legislation, to provide speedy, inexpensive and hassle-free redressal to grievance of consumers – Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, except one, provided under Section 13(4) of Act and Evidence Act are not applicable to consumer disputes – Consumer Fora are to evolve their own procedure, for adjudicating consumer disputes, by resorting to principles of natural justice, but are not required to enter into technicalities, with a view to deny substantial justice to parties. (Para 12)
(B) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 79 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 100 – Real estate – Booking of Residential Plot – Additional demand and lack of basic infrastructure – Complainant has specifically stated that she booked the plot for her personal use and occupation and to construct the same as per her own taste – She has also reiterated so in rejoinder – Complainant is a Consumer – On merits of the case, As per settled law, it was required of opposite parties to issue allotment letter, allocate plot No.; execute agreement under law within a reasonable period; raise demands in accordance with stage of development at project site; complete development work; and then deliver possession of plot to complainant – Validity of offer of possession can only be recognized if it is supported by a Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate – There is no legal provision allowing possession to be offered based solely on a Partial Completion Certificate – Inaction of opposite parties, which constitutes deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice, cannot be used as a tool against complainant – It cannot be expected and also not feasible that buyer has to keep on visiting office or project site, every month, with a request to developer for allocation of plot No. and also for execution of agreement, once she has complied her part, by making required payment – Act of raising demands and receiving substantial amount, in absence of development work; without allotment of plot and executing agreement, was not only unfair but illegal – No cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record by opposite parties to prove that development work at project site is at advance stage and that basic amenities such as roads, electricity, sewerage etc. are completed – Complaint partly accepted with costs. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 19 and 26)
(C) Real estate – Booking of Residential Plot – In matters involving cancellation of allotment, decision with serious legal and financial consequences, due process requires that concerned party be duly informed through verifiable and reliable means – In present case, not only have opposite parties failed to produce any such proof but they have also not explained or clarified manner in which alleged notice was attempted to be served – Burden to prove service of a communication lies on party who asserts such service, especially when consequences of non-response are severe, as in case of automatic cancellation – In absence of any credible evidence establishing service, complainant’s categorical assertion that she never received show cause letter assumes significance and must be accepted as gospel truth. (Para 21)
Result: Complaint partly allowed with costs.
ORDER
Brief facts:
Rajesh K. Arya, Member.—The complainant booked a residential plot of 300 sq. yards at Rs.18,500 per sq yard in the “Palm Garden” project in Mullanpur, Mohali, submitting an application on 22.10.2011 and paying Rs.16,65,000 (30% of the sale consideration) between October and November 2011. Despite no development or plot number issuance, the opposite parties demanded an additional 20% of the BSP (.11,10,000) in August 2013 to complete 50% payment, which the complainant paid in hope of receiving the plot number. Following this, the opposite parties issued an acknowledgment dated 23.08.2013 that included hidden charges like IDC, not part of the original agreement. Upon visiting the site on 28.04.2014, the complainant found no development and learned that the necessary CLU permission had not been obtained, a fact previously concealed and falsely represented as received in correspondence. The complainant requested plot allotment in May 2014, threatening legal action due to delays, after which the opposite parties assured allotment by December 2014 and issued a letter confirming this; however, the allotment was not made as promised. Subsequently, the complainant was told she needed to pay more to receive the allotment letter and paid Rs.8,32,500 (15%) in August 2015. On 14.03.2016, despite no development, agreement, or allotment letter, the opposite parties demanded Rs.5,55,000 to complete 75% of the sale consideration plus Rs.9,00,000 as development charges (EDC and IDC), which the complainant paid the same day. Finally, plot No. 760 was allotted but its size was reduced to 289.67 sq. yards, lowering the sale consideration from Rs.55,50,000 to Rs.53,58,895, with an additional EDC charge of Rs.5,79,340 at Rs.2,000 per sq. yard. It is averred that the complainant was not liable for PLC as the plot did not fall under preferential locations. Despite this, without starting development or executing an agreement, the opposite parties demanded an unexplained further sum of Rs.23,10,000 on 19.02.2018, although the complainant had already paid over 75% of the sale consideration. Repeated requests by the complainant for agreement execution from January 2020 were met with demands for more money and the opposite parties failed to finalize the agreement. A letter dated 12.10.2021 falsely claimed that development was in full swing and possession would be delivered within 6-9 months; however, no development existed at the plot site, exposing this as a ploy to extort further funds. On 15.12.2022 vide letter Annexure C-13, the opposite parties offered possession without completing development work or obtaining a completion certificate. When the complainant’s attorney inspected the site, essential infrastructure such as roads, sewerage, and electricity was absent. The complainant was pressured to pay an additional Rs.10 lakhs, which, while abroad in Germany, she instructed a relative to pay under duress. To date, the opposite parties have neither executed the buyer’s agreement nor delivered possession despite receiving nearly the entire sale consideration and continuously demanding unlawful additional charges including IDC, PLC, possession fees, and other hidden costs not payable by the complainant.
Relief sought by the complainants:
2. The complainant has sought following directions to the opposite parties:
(i) to deliver vacant possession of plot No. 760, measuring 289.67sq. yard in residential colony “Palm Garden” situated in Mullanpur Garibdas, New Chandigarh, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab after obtaining the completion certificate and the complainant is ready to pay the balance sale consideration mutually agreed at the time of booking vide application dated 22.10.2011 & payment plan, Annexure C-2;
(ii) pay interest @12% p.a. for causing the delay in handing over the possession of the plot on the amount paid by the complainant w. e. f. 22.10.2013 upto the date of handing over the actual physical possession of the plot complete in
