IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112 CWP-26869-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner VERSUS National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others ..... Respondents

113 CWP-26889-2025 (O&M)

M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner VERSUS National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others ..... Respondents

114 CWP-26891-2025 (O&M)

Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner VERSUS National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others ..... Respondents

115 CWP-26895-2025 (O&M)

Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner VERSUS National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (in all petitions)

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

1. All the present writ petitions involve common question of law based on common set of facts and therefore, are being disposed of by one and common judgment.

2. Challenge in the abovesaid writ petitions is to the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SCDRC’) and order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCDRC’), whereby respondents- complainants were held entitled for compensation by way of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of due date of possession onwards till the date of delivery of the possession on the entire received sale consideration in respect of the units in question along with lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, deficiency in providing service and also compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- on account of litigation cost.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents-complainants, in the abovementioned writ petitions, despite the fact that they are in possession of their respective units and sale deeds have also been executed between the parties, yet, the petitioner-company has failed to pay the compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the said units. The respondents-complainants had filed complaints before the SCDRC claiming compensation on account of delay in delivery of possession of the respective units by the petitioner-company. The details of date of possession, execution of sale deeds, payments made by respondents-complainants, due date of possession and possession delivered, are reproduced in the chart below:-

4. The petitioner-company duly filed separate written statements in the complaints filed by respondents-complainants. The objections taken by the petitioner-company in the complaints filed by respondents-

complainants are reproduced below:-

“(i) that the complainants have concealed material facts from this Commission;

(ii) that the complainants being investors did not fall within the definition of consumers;

(iii) that permission to file joint respective complaints has not been filed by the complainants and as such, the same are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone;

(iv) that this Commission is not vested with territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to decide these complaints;

(v) that in the face of arbitration clause contained in the agreements to settle all the dispute arising out of the unit in question through arbitration, this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain these complaints;

(vi) that although as per Clause 7.1 of the agreement, possession of the unit in question was to be delivered, as per dates given in the chart above, yet, it was delayed because the opposite party suffered force majeure circumstances due to COVID-19;

(vii) that the Competent Authority vide circular dated

28.10.2020, Annexure R-1/1, granted extension of period of 6 months for ongoing project, where the completion date was due on or before 15.03.2020 and, as