DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:09.05.2019 Date of hearing:04.11.2025 Date of Decision: 13.01.2026 COMPLAINT CASE NO.477/2019 IN THE MATTER OF SATENDRA SHARMA, S/O SHRI K.K. SHARMA, R/O D-111/C, OLD POST OFFICE GALI, SHAKARPUR, DELHI-110092 …COMPLAINANT VERSUS HABITECH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

139-A, POCKET-C, MAYUR VIHAR -II, DELHI – 110091 ALSO AT:

C-26, 1^ST FLOOR, SECTOR-3, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH – 201301.

…OPPOSITE PARTY CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:

(i) The OP may kindly be directed to refund the deposited amount Rs.25,97,721/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. (according to clause 45 of allotment letter) to the Complainant immediately without any further delay.

(ii) The OP may kindly be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain.

(iii) The OP may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as costs of litigation.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that after seeing some advertisements in newspapers the Complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the project concerned and also visited at site situated at plot No. 8A, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida, and the officials of the opposite party motivated the Complainant to purchase a flat/unit in the project of the opposite party in by explaining the qualities of the opposite party and also showed various catalogue, sample unit/flat and after satisfaction from the information given by the officials of the opposite party the Complainant also showed their interest in purchasing a flat/ unit at the aforesaid project. Accordingly, the Complainant got ready to purchase a flat/ unit ad-measuring area 940 Sq. Ft., after signing the Advance Registration Form (ARF) the original form is in the possession of the opposite party under the scheme of construction linked plan and paid the amount as and when demanded by the OP. The OP also allotted a unit bearing No. 1404 in Tower A-6. Subsequently the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 25,97,721/- to the OP on various occasions as and when demanded by the opposite party, while the total cost of the flat was Rs.

27,67,382/-.

3. It is stated that in terms of Clause 40 of the allotment letter, possession of the flat was to be delivered within 3 years from the date of booking i.e. 27.05.2013, but the opposite party failed to do so, though the opposite party issued an allotment letter to the complainant by which the flat number A-6/1404 has been allotted to the complainant. However, the sample flat shown at the time of registration was totally different from the unit / flat allotted to the complaint. It is not out of place to mention here that at the time of registration the opposite party assured/ promised the complainant the unit shall be allotted through lucky draw. However, the unit/ flat bearing No. A-6, 1404 allotted to the complainant were totally at the sole discretion of the opposite party. The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant before December 2016, however, the flat/unit of the opposite party is not ready to deliver and after running from pillar to post the opposite party failed to give the exact date of possession.

4. It is further stated that after receiving such huge payment from the complainant, the opposite party remained silent till September 2017 i.e. more than 04 years and all of sudden issued a demand letter dated 27.09.2017 demanding Rs.2,87,579/- as total outstanding. After receiving the above demand letter dated 27.09.2017, the Complainant visited the site of the OP to know about the status of the flat in question and was shocked to know