IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GFEDCBA NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 706 OF 2022 (From the order dated 13.06.2022 in CC No. 67/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana)

Anil Kumar Goyal, S/o Shri Ram Avtar Goyal, R/o 1011, Neelkanth Apartment, Plot No.. 49, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi - 110085. Appellant Versus (1) Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd., Sector-35, Sonepat, Narela Road, Sonepat, Haryana -

131001 through its authorized officer/Director (2) Rajiv Kumar, Director of Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd., M-2/D10, Jhule Lal Flats, MIG, M-2, Pitampura, New Delhi.

(3) Vivek Agarwal, Director of Jindal Reality Pvt. Ltd., A-303, GH-8, Prerana, CGHS, Sector-56, Gurgaon (Haryana) - 122003.

JRIHeGspFoEDndCeBnAts BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the Appellant Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal (In person)

For the Respondents Mr. Sriharsh N. Bundela, Mr. Naveen Kumar Yadav, Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocates

ORDER

Dated : 21.01.2026

1. This appeal involves a builder-buyer dispute wherein the State Commission, Haryana has allowed the complaint 67/2018 and directed the refund of the principal amount and interest thereon at the rate of 6%. The undisputed brief facts are that the complainant-appellant booked an independent floor bearing no. 56, Block B for a consideration of Rs.39.49 lakhs, the State Commission found that an amount of Rs.31,03,419/- was paid by the appellant against the total sale consideration of Rs.39.49 lakhs but the builder-respondent could not deliver the possession of the floor even after nine years. As such, the possession was to be offered within 36 months but the same could not be done by the respondent for nine years. The State Commission, therefore, found deficiency in the service of the respondent and granted compensation by way of refund of amount plus interest at 6%. The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced as under:

9. In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, floor was purchased by the complainant for a cost of Rs.39,49,000/- against which an amount of Rs.31,03,419/- had been paid. Buyer agreement is also not disputed. As per buyer agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within period of 36 months in all respects complete subject to some reservation. To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 9 years had expired, the possession of the floor has not been delivered by O.Ps. As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the buyers agreement on behalf of the O.Ps. It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that developer would collect their hard earned money from the individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed. Resultantly, the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case. W hen the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service of opposite parties and thus, complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.31,03,419/- (Thirty One lac Three thousand four hundred and nineteen Only) which he had already deposited with the O.Ps. Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. In such like cases the Commission had to deal with the developers/O.Ps. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. As such the question is answered in the affirmative.

10.

GFEDC In B A the light of the abov