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
##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