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

Consumer Complaint No. : 106 of 2024 Date of Institution : 26.11.2024 Date of Decision : 15.01.2026 Sh. Randeep Singh Sisodia son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, aged about 56 years, presently residing at House No.743, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

……. Complainant Versus

1. M/s BPTP Resort Private Limited, Registered office: OT-14, 3rd Floor, Next Door, Parklands, Sector-76, Faridabad (Haryana)-121004 through its Managing Director

2. M/s BPTP Resort Private Limited, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001 through its Director.

…Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant Sh. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the opposite parties PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties, through advertisements and assurances, launched a residential project namely “THE RESORT” at BPTP Parklands, Sector-75, Faridabad, Haryana, on the basis of which the complainant, who was residing in a rented accommodation and intended to purchase a flat for his personal use, booked a residential unit after being assured that all approvals were in place and possession would be delivered within 36 months with a grace period of

6 months. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.6,07,500/- on 13.12.2007 (Annexure C-1), pursuant to which Flat No. F-1202 on the 12th Floor of Tower-F admeasuring 1875 sq. ft. super area was allotted vide allotment letter dated 17.03.2008 (Annexure C-2), followed by execution of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 20.03.2008 fixing the basic sale price at Rs. 40,50,000/- and stipulating possession by 20.09.2011 (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, under the directions of the opposite parties, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.59,53,922/- between 2007 and 2014, supported by payment receipts (Annexures C-4 to C-9) and also availed a housing loan of Rs.37,71,000/- from HDFC Bank pursuant to a Tripartite Agreement dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure C-10), towards which, he has till date paid Rs.69,78,900/- as principal and interest duly evidenced by yearly certificates (Annexures C-11 to C-24), yet despite having paid approximately Rs.90,00,000/- in total and continuing to service the loan, the complainant was not handed over possession within the agreed time; instead, the opposite parties issued an offer of possession dated 13.09.2013 unilaterally increasing the super area to 2140 sq. ft. and raising additional demands (Annexure C-25), followed by an unexplained demand dated 21.07.2014 including maintenance charges without any maintenance agreement (Annexure C-26).

2] Upon repeated requests, inspection was permitted on 09.01.2015 as intimated vide email dated 06.01.2015, during which the flat was found incomplete and recorded in the joint inspection report (Annexures C-27 & C-28), notwithstanding which the opposite parties continued to issue arbitrary and escalating demand notices dated 21.07.2014, 17.03.2015, 11.07.2016, 22.02.2017 and 16.04.2018 (Annexures C-29 to C- 32), later reducing the same themselves, clearly allegedly establishing their baseless nature; despite repeated written and electronic communications by the complainant (Annexures C-33 & C-34) and a legal notice dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure C-35), no possession or compensation was granted and though the complainant had earlier filed Case No.2751 of 2023 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file before the Consumer Forum vide order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure C-36) and as possession has still not been delivered, the cause of action continues, conferring territorial jurisdiction upon this Hon’ble Commission at Chandigarh.

3] The complainant, in the present complaint, has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to hand over complete lawful possession with completion/occupation certificates, pay interest @18% p.a.