Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 32338
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.K. Agarwal, Judicial Member, R.N. Sarswat, Non-Judicial Member
Sameer Singh Bagoria – Appellant
Versus
Rajul Infra – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO:02/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jagpravesh Sharma
For the Respondents: S.N. Bohra, Ajay Raj Tantiya
Failure to provide possession of a residential unit within the contractually stipulated period, coupled with the absence of a government-approved completion certificate, constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling the consumer to a refund and compensation, independent of any ongoing loan recovery proceedings by third-party financiers.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(5) and 2(7) - Consumer dispute - Failure to deliver possession of flat - Deficiency in service - Where a developer fails to deliver possession within the stipulated time, it constitutes a clear deficiency in service - Private certification of project completion by architect cannot be accepted as proof of valid completion without statutory agency clearance - Consumer is entitled to refund of booking amount with interest and compensation for mental agony.
(B) Financial Institution’s liability - PNB Housing Finance Ltd. - Held, no deficiency in service by the lender as the loan agreement operates independently from the builder-buyer contract.
Facts of the case:
Complainant booked a flat, paid substantial consideration, but the builder failed to deliver possession. The project was alleged to be incomplete, lacking basic facilities, and not registered under RERA, leading the Complainant to seek a refund and compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the builder failed to deliver possession and failed to produce a valid, government-issued completion certificate. The builder was held liable for deficiency in service, while the lender was exonerated.
Issues: Whether the builder committed deficiency in service, whether the project was legally completed, and whether the financial institution is liable for the builder’s default.
Ratio Decidendi: A builder’s failure to deliver possession within the agreed period constitutes deficiency in service, and private completion certificates granted by architects are insufficient to discharge the builder’s obligation without state-authorized completion/occupancy certificates.
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant's assertion of builder's deficiency in service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
Sameer Singh Bagoria
S/o Prem Chand Bagoria aged about 44 years R/O B-10, Ganpati Tower, Near Tata Indicom Office, Nursery Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
...Complainant
-VERSUS-
1. Rajul Infra (Chordia Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.)
Having its Registered Office at Chordia House, Chordia Petrol Pump, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Balvir Kumar Chorida
S/O Late Birdhi Chand Chordia R/O Sundaram, B-28, NU Lite Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Aditya Chorida
S/O Balvir Kumar Chorida R/0 Sundaram, B-28, NU Lite Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
4. PNB Housing Finance Limited
Having its office at 9th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001
…Respondents
Before
HON’BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. R.N. SARSWAT – MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
Present:
For Appellants: Mr. Jagpravesh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 To 3: Mr. S.N. Bohra, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Ajay Raj Tantiya, Advocate
Dated: 17/11/2025
Judgement
Authored by: Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat – Member
Complainant’s Version
The Complainant purchased Flat No. 1003, admeasuring 1742.91 sq. ft. (super built-up area), situated on the 10th Floor of the project titled “Rajul Augusta”, developed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide Agreement to Sale dated 02.05.2016, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,01,13,564/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Four only). Out of the said amount, the Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,00,11,307/-, comprising of Rs.22,50,000/- from his own funds and Rs.85,00,000/- financed by Respondent No. 4 – PNB Housing Finance Ltd., out of which Rs.77,61,307/- has already been disbursed and paid towards the said flat.
The flat was booked by the Complainant solely for self-residential purposes and not for commercial or investment motives. Accordingly, the Complainant squarely falls within the definition of a “Consumer” under Section 2(7) read with Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondents, while launching the said project, induced him to purchase the flat through advertisements, brochures, and oral assurances, promising world-class amenities such as a clubhouse, gymnasium, swimming pool, sewage treatment plant (STP), electrification, and landscaped development.
As per the terms of the Agreement to Sale, possession of the flat was to be delivered on 16.02.2017, with a grace period of six months, ending on 16.08.2017. However, despite receipt of almost the entire sale consideration, the Respondents failed to complete the project within the stipulated time and did not deliver possession of the said flat to the Complainant. The Complainant has contended that even as on August 2022, upon his visit to the site, the project remained incomplete and lacked basic infrastructure facilities.
It is further alleged that, despite repeated requests and communications, the Respondents neither handed over possession of the flat nor refunded the deposited amount. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondents have failed to obtain the Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate and have not registered the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), thereby committing acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Complainant submits that he has suffered severe financial loss, harassment, and mental agony due to the acts and omissions of the Respondents. He continues to repay the housing loan availed from Respondent No. 4 without being handed over possession of the flat, which has caused him considerable hardship.
In support of his case, the Complainant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Ashok Kumar Shivpuri vs. Ashok B. Chajjar (Revision Petition No. 3152/2018) and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rehm
