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

Appeal No. : 122 of 2025 Date of Institution : 07.03.2025 Date of Decision : 19.01.2026

1] Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector

62, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Chief Administrator.

2] Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector

62, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Estate Officer (IT City)

….Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Punam Sharma, aged about 50 years, wife of Manoj Kumar Sharma R/o House No.3094, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh ….Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants Sh. N. P. Sharma, Advocate (on VC) alongwith Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for he respondent/complainant PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the opposite parties -

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) (appellants herein) for setting aside order dated 18.01.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.164 of 2021 filed by the complainant – Punam Sharma (respondent herein) has been partly allowed against the appellants by granting following relief:-

“15. In the light of above discussion, the act of Opposite Parties, to our mind not only amounts to deficiency in service, but is a grave malpractice under the Consumer Protection Act. This consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly &

severally, directed as under:-

i) To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. to the complainant, on the entire amount deposited by her, for delay in delivery of possession of the plot in question, w.e.f. the promised date of possession i.e. from 16.11.2017 till the date of handing over actual possession of the plot in question.

ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

iii) to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

16. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2] In brief, the case of the complainant before the District Commission was that a residential plot measuring 236.66 sq. yards @ ₹20,000/- per sq. yard under the General Category in the 750 Plots Scheme (IT City, Mohali) was originally allotted in the name of Sh. Narinder Kumar by the Estate Officer, GMADA vide LOI Exhibit C-1, which was subsequently sold by him to the complainant through a full and final sale agreement after receiving 30% of the total consideration (₹52,00,000/-). The LOI was transferred in the name of the complainant vide Memo No.55150 and thereafter the allotment letter Exhibit C-3 was issued, subject to the terms of the LOI and the Punjab Regional Town Planning & Development Act, 1995. The complainant opted for the 5% rebate payment plan under Clause 5(II) of the LOI and paid the entire remaining 70% amount in time. As per Clause 15 of the LOI, possession was to be handed over within one year from 17.11.2017, however the allotment letter was issued only on 09.06.2020, allotting Plot No. 1254, Sector 83, Alpha Block-B, measuring 256.66 sq. yards. Despite Clause 9 of the allotment letter requiring possession within 90 days and despite full payment by the complainant, the opposite parties failed to hand over physical vacant possession, made false assurances and did not respond to repeated requests, thereby committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, resulting into filing of a consumer complaint by the complainant before the District Commission.

3] On the o