STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 29 of 2022 Date of Institution : 24.03.2022 Date of Decision : 27.10.2022

1. Mrs.Anita Singh wife of Lt. Gen. Kamal Jit Singh, aged 64 years.

2. Lt. Gen. Kamal Jit Singh son of Sh.Manohar Singh, IAS (Retd.), aged 66 years.

R/o of House No. A-1/33-Ground Floor, DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, The Valley, Sector 3, Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, Village Bhagwanpur, Islamnagar, Panchkula, Haryana-134107.

....Complainants Versus

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Registered Office at 12th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower Building, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway, Gurugram-122002 through its Managing Director/

Director/Authorized Signatory Second Address:- DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Corporate and Sales Office, # F-2/3, The Valley, Sector 3, Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, Village Bhagwanpur, Islamnagar, Panchkula, Haryana-134105 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. Sh.Surinder Singh Chawla, Director, DIN-00102064 and Sh Rakesh Kerwell, Director, M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, 12th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower Building, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway, Gurugram-122002.

3. Mr.Vineet Kanwar (DIN-00522258), Mr.Rajeev Singh (DIN-02669832), Harsh Deep Sachdeva, Directors (00330009), DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Corporate and Sales Office # F-2/3, The Valley, Sector 3, Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, Village Bhagwanpur, Islamnagar, Panchkula, Haryana-134105 ....Opposite parties no.1 to 3

4. Director General and Country Town Planner, Department of Town &

Country Planning Haryana, Plot No.3, Sec-18A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018.

.....Proforma Opposite Party No.4 BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER. MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:-- Maj. Gen (Retd.) M.P. Singh, Advocate for the complainants alongwith complainant no.2 in person.

Sh.Kunal Dawar and Ms.Tanika Goyal, Advocates for opposite parties no.1 to 3.

Opposite party no.4 exparte.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The moot question which falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether, a builder can recover amount of excess area, beyond the area mentioned in the occupation certificate?

2. Both the complainants are senior citizens and struggled for getting possession of their unit for more than one decade and now they are before this Commission for execution of sale deed in respect of the said unit. It is the case of the complainants that initially, complainant no.2 vide application dated 18.02.2010, Annexure C-1, applied to opposite parties no.1 to 3 for purchase of residential unit bearing no.A1/45-First Floor, in its project named “DLF Valley”, Sector 3 Panchkula, against total sale consideration of Rs.49,61,360/-, yet, they failed to deliver possession thereof by 24.11.2012 i.e. within a period of 24 months as envisaged in Clause 11 (a) of the agreement dated 25.11.2010, Annexure C-7. It has been averred that during the period intervening, opposite parties no.1 to 3 informed complainant no.2 that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed the construction activities for the period from April 2012 to December 2012. However, by 31.10.2013, total amount of Rs.29,40,501/- stood received by opposite parties no.1 to 3, yet, possession of unit no. A1/45 was still not offered to complainant no.2. To his utter shock, opposite parties no.1 to 3 vide letter dated 04.03.2014, Annexure C-10 colly., informed complainant no.2 that allotment of unit no. A1/45 is cancelled, which was later on restored. Thereafter, complainant no.2 raised housing loan from Army Group Insurance Fund and made more payments to opposite parties no.1 to 3 and thus by 10.08.2015 total amount of Rs.47,10,471/- stood paid in respect of unit no. A1/45, however, possession thereof was still not offered and delivered. When complainant no.2 contacted opposite parties no.1 to 3 in the matter, they vide letter dated Annexure