Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Bimla Kumari, Member
Karan Aggarwal – Complainant
versus
M3M India Limited. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No. 49 of 2022
Decided on 27.1.2026

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Z. Rahman, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Yash Dewan and Ms. Avantika Thakur, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Deficiency in Service Established – The builder’s failure to hand over the apartment within the contractually agreed timeline, followed by an arbitrary cancellation of the allotment and unjustified forfeiture of funds, was ruled a clear “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (read with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) – Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [corresponding to Section 2(11) of the 2019 Act] – A consumer complaint must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arises, with provisions for condonation of delay and Supreme Court-mandated extensions during the COVID-19 pandemic – The Complainant booked an apartment in the Opposite Parties’ (OPs) project in 2011, paying a total of Rs.1,00,38,780/. – As per the Builder-Buyer Agreement, possession was to be handed over within 36 months plus a 180-day grace period – The OPs failed to deliver the apartment by the stipulated time (January 2015) – Instead, after a delay of more than three years, they issued a notice demanding extra payment for an increased super area and delayed interest – When the Complainant protested, the OPs issued a Notice of Termination on 20.03.2018, arbitrarily cancelling the allotment and forfeiting Rs.78,53,186/-. – The OPs’ right to file a written statement was closed due to delay, but they argued on law that the complaint was barred by the two-year limitation period – Whether the present complaint is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Whether the delay in handing over possession and the subsequent termination of the allotment by the OPs constitute a “deficiency in service” – The Commission held that the complaint is not barred by limitation. Although the allotment was terminated on 20.03.2018 and the standard two-year limitation would have expired on 20.03.2020, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded per the Supreme Court’s orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint, filed on 22.03.2022, fell well within the permitted extended window – Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent (Arifur Rahman Khan vs. DLF Southern Homes), the Commission held that the failure to hand over the flat within the contractually stipulated period, coupled with the unjustified and arbitrary termination of the allotment, constitutes a clear deficiency in service – The Commission directed the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,00,38,780/- along with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of each deposit until the date of judgment (interest increases to 9% p.a. if not paid by 27.03.2026). Furthermore, the OPs were directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and Rs.50,000/- as litigation costs.

JUDGMENT :

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President)—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:

a) “Direct the OP-1 to OP-6 to pay Rs.1,00,38,780.00 (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Only) along with simple interest of 24% p.a. to the Complainant from 19.01.2015 i.e., from the date of delivery of Apartment till the present day, or

b) Direct the OP-1 to OP-6 to execute the conveyance deed of the Apartment and handover the physical and vacant possession of the flat to the Complainant along with interest for delayed possession of Apartment,

c) Direct the OP to compensate an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Complainant of the mental harassment she has suffered from pillar to part with her query to the Representatives of the OP.

d) Direct the OP to pay Cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-.

e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of complainant in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 22.07.2011, the Complainant submitted an application form to book an apartment in the project namely “M3M Merlin” of the Opposite Party No. 1 and paid an advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Opposite Parties. Further, the Opposite Parties have allotted an Apartment bearing no. MM TW-C03/0102 admeasuring a super area of approximately 2025 sq. ft. located at Floor 01 in Merlin Tower C03 of the housing project of the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 23.07.2011 was entered between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties and a provisional Allotment Letter dated 22.09.2011 was issued in favour of the Complainant. As per the clause 16.1 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Parties assured that the said project shall be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of construction with a grace period of 180 days. The Complainant without fail and diligently paid the instalments as and when requested by the Opposite Parties. However, after noticing no progress and utter delay in the development of the said Project and upon expiry of 36 months along with the grace period of 180 days, the Complainant stopped making payments to the Opposite Parties simultaneously worried about the amount made so far of Rs.1,00,38,780/-.

3. The Complainant made the last payment of Rs.14,16,782/- on 22.08.2014 and no subsequent requests for payment were made by the Opposite Parties as well as no information regarding the completion of the project was given by the Opposite Parties. Further, the Opposite Party no. 1 issued a Notice of Possession in favour of Complainant after a huge delay of more than three years and revised the super area from 2025 sq. ft. to 2048 sq. ft. of the Apartment in question which in turn also enhanced the amount payable by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 also demanded an interest of Rs.3,72,597/- for the alleged delay in making the payment by the Complainant. Moreover, Opposite Parties demanded the remaining amount of Rs.80,12,828/- for physical possession of the Apartment. The Complainant protested the said demand raised by the Opposite Parties, however, the Opposite Party No.1 issued a Notice of Termination dated 20.03.2018, terminating the Allotment of Apartment and the documentation executed in relation thereto and the Apartment allocated/allotted was cancelled and forfeited an amount of Rs.78,53,186/- out of Rs.1,00,38,780/- and informed that the remaining balance of Rs.21,85,594/- shall be refunded, which till date has not been refunded to the Complainant. Therefore, alleging the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached this Commission.

4. Notice of the present complaint was is