IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 M/S BABA ESTATES AND COLONIZERS AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Versus RUPY MINHAS AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

* * * *

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘National Commission’) dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) has been partly allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the National Commission and the State Commission have erroneously directed the petitioners to refund the amount of Rs.22,50,000/-, although, respondent No.1 was not able to prove that there was any deficiency in service on part of the petitioners. The husband of respondent No.1, who was a contractor, had entered into a work contract agreement dated 14.06.2012 with the petitioners to complete the building project of the petitioners. Later, her husband had abandoned the project work and therefore, he would be entitled to only a refund of Rs.1,00,000/-, which had been duly paid by him to the petitioners. He would be entitled to the remaining amount only upon satisfactory execution of the work, which he had failed to do. He also submits that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and therefore, the State Commission as well as the National Commission should have relegated the parties for arbitration proceedings in terms of Clause 14 of the agreement to sell dated 30.07.2014.

3. Heard.

4. The petitioners and respondent no.4 are developers who as a joint venture are stated to have floated a residential and commercial township project at Greater Mohali. As per the complaint (Annexure P-3) in 2012, the complainant/respondent no.1 booked two adjacent flats bearing nos.134/1 and 135/1 in Block 6 of the project, with each flat being valued at Rs. 22,50,000/-. She had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners by way of a cheque dated 09.05.2012 qua Flat No.134/1 and was assured that a buyer’s agreement would be executed at a later date. Thereafter, an agreement for execution of the project had been arrived at between the petitioners and the husband of respondent No.1, who was a contractor. As per the agreement, the value of the services offered by the husband of the respondent no.1 would be adjusted against the outstanding amount in respect of the flat. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was adjusted against Flat No.134/1 on 30.12.2012. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of RTGS on 18.06.2013. Thus, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in respect of flat No.134/1 to the petitioners-developer. Thereafter, there was a dispute with regard to the execution of the project as well as the payment of the outstanding amount between the petitioners and husband of respondent No.1. At this stage, respondent no.1 approached the District Forum, Chandigarh and notice was issued in the consumer complaint. Thereafter, the petitioners had entered into a settlement with husband of respondent No.1 and an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was adjusted against the amount due qua Flat No.134/1. However, the petitioners expressed their inability to allot Flat No.134/1 and subsequently Flat No.96 was allotted to respondent No.1 in its place. The petitioners issued the allotment letter dated 30.07.2014 regarding Flat No.96. Finally, the parties executed the Agreement to Sell dated 30.07.2014. As per the agreement, petitioner No.1 was to hand over the possession of two flats on or before 30.09.2015. The previously instituted complaint bearing CC No.29