STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/57/2024 BABITA SETH PRESENT ADDRESS - G 604 SUSHMACRESCENT GAZIPUR OLD AMBALA ROAD DHAKOLI ZIRAKPUR DISTRICT SAS NAGAR MOHALI PUNJAB ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PRESENT ADDRESS - UNIT NO B 107 BUSINESS COMPLEX ELANTE MALL FIRST FLOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE ONE CHANDIGARH ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

BABITA SETH DATED: 19/03/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH [ADDL. BENCH] ============

Consumer Complaint No. : CC/57/2024 Date of Institution : 17/05/2024 Date of Decision : 19/03/2025 Babita Seth wife of Sh. Sanjeev Seth, Resident of G-604, Sushma Cresent, Gazipur, Old Ambala Road, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

…. Complainant Vs.

Sushma Buildtech Limited , through its Managing Director, Unit No.B-107, Business Complex, Elante Mall, 1 st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

…… Opposite Party BEFORE: PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT : Sh. Bawa Karanveer, Advocate along with Sh. Bhanu Sharma, Advocate for the Complainant.

: Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER In brief, it is the case of the complainant that despite making payment of (cid:0)56,22,231/- to the Opposite Party out of total sale consideration of (cid:0)72,84,100/-, towards purchase of Flat bearing th no.O-504, measuring 1705 sq. ft., 5 Floor, Tower O, in its project named ‘Sushma Crescent’, at Village Gazipur & Kishanpura, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short the unit), possession whereof as per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for Sale dated 12.12.2018 was supposed to be handed over on 12.06.2022, which was not offered till date. The said unit was purchased under "Subvention Plan" and a Tripartite Agreement was executed on 17.12.2018 between the Complainant, Opposite Party and the HDFC Ltd. Various requests and personal entreaties were made by the complainant with the Opposite Party for possession of the unit did not yield any fruitful results. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint.

Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of

2.

the case.

3. Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant on numerous grounds, inter alia, that the complainant being speculator does not fall within the definition of consumer; that Complaint is liable for want of both pecuniary & territorial jurisdiction; that Covid-19 pandemic and consequent government imposed restrictions directly impacted project timelines which was beyond the control of the Opposite Party; that the project in question has been registered under RERA and as such this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission when both the parties have agreed for adjudication through Adjudicating Officer to be appointed under RERA Act; that the Complainant executed a Tripartite Agreement with HDFC Ltd. on 17.12.2018 for a housing loan of (cid:0)45,00,000/- towards the payment of the sale consideration of the unit and in accordance with Clause 3.1 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party had duly fulfilled its obligation by making payments of pre-EMI totalling (cid:0)12,86,907/-. On merits, purchase of the unit in question by the complainant; payments made by her as mentioned in the complaint; has not been disputed by the Opposite Party. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer has been made by Opposite Party for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

4. Controverting the allegations contained in the reply filed by Opposite Party and reiterating the pl