SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3234

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MANOJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 2 ORS. – Respondent
NC/FA/9/2022



Petitioner Advocates:MS. SWASTIKA KUMARI & MR. SHERYAS JAIN ,Respondent Advocate: MR. ROHAN SHARMA & ROMA BHAGAT

##PAGE1##

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON: 18/11/2025

JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 19/12/2025

FIRST APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2022

(Against the Order dated 07.01.2021 in Complaint No. 208/2018 of the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh)

With

IA/60-61,221 & 12404/2022 (Stay, exemption from filing C/c, condonation of delay,

Condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder)

Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri N.K. Yadav, R/o G-31, First Floor, Aruna Park, Shakarpur,

Delhi-110092. Appellant

Versus

(1) Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, 1st Floor, Commercial

Complex, Block - P-ll, Sector Omega-I, Greater Noida City, Gautambudh Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh - 201308.

(2) Dr. Arun Veer Singh, CEO, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development

Authority, 1st Floor, Commercial Complex, Block - P-ll, Sector Omega-I, Greater

Noida City, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh -201308.

(3) Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Chairman, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development

Authority, 1st Floor, Commercial Complex, Block - P-ll, Sector Omega-I, Greater

Noida City, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201308, U.P.

......Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

For the Appellant : Ms. Swastika Kumari, advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Rohan Sharma, Ms. Ruchika Sharma,

Advocates

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PA ND YA. MEMBER

1.

The present first appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.01.2021

passed by State Commission, U.P. whereby State Commission partly allowed the

complaint and directed the respondents/OPs to complete the construction within 3

months and to provide actual possession of the flat to the appellant/complainant and

not ordered the refund as was asked by the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was allotted Flat No.2562TF vide

allotment letter no. BHSO14368 in the scheme "B.H.S -01/2013" dated 15.01.2014

through lucky draw. Appellant received a letter dated 02.07.2014 from R-1 for

##PAGE2##

execution of lease agreement for the allotted flat no. 2562TF and as suggested by

the R-1, the appellant executed the same. As per the clause 6 of conditions of the

allotment letter dated 15.01.2014, allottees shall get the possession within four years

from the issuance of allotment letter i.e. by 15.01.2018. Appellant paid the all-due

instalments/payments on or before the due dates. However, when appellant visited

the said site in the last week of April, 2018 he found that the project was incomplete

till that date. He issued legal notice dated 05.05.2018 to the respondents for refund of

the money but no reply was received. As per the appellant, an allottee or home buyer

holds an unqualified right to seek refund of the amount with interest if the builder fails

to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building either in

terms of the agreement for sale or to complete the project by the date specified

therein. Due to continued failure on the part of the respondents in not completing the

project within the assured time frame, appellant had no utility for the said flat now, so

he was not interested in possession of the said flat and he demanded refund of

amounts deposited and all the expenses incurred along with interest, mental agony,

opportunity cost, all legal dues etc. for the said failure and deficient service on the

part of the respondent. Being aggrieved, complainant/appellant filed a complaint

before the State Commission, wherein the State Commission vide its order dated

07.01.2021, while partly allowing the complaint, ordered the OPs/respondents to

complete the construction and hand over actual possession of the flat to the

complainant, by way of the following order:

u

It is clear from the above description that the lease deed dated 11-07 2014 is

not complete. Therefore, vide letter dated 05-12-2017, there is a basis for requesting

by the opposite parties to execute the deed from the complainant. But the complainant

has not executed the lease deed as per this letter. Possession ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top