SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 718

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUSHMA BANSAL – Appellant
Versus
GMADA – Respondent
SC/3/CC/43/2024



Petitioner Advocates:ARUNA SACHDEVA ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2024

Date of institution : 13.08.2024

Date of Reserve : 16.01.2026

Date of decision : 03.02.2026

Sushma Bansal aged about 44 years, wife of Sh. Mudit Bansal

R/o H.No.69, Bazaar No.5, Ferozepur Cantt., Punjab, now

residing at A-201, Gala Aura Gymkhana Road South Bopal,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat having Adhaar No.7437 3699 6857, phone

No.9888840586.

….Complainant

Versus

Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority,

PUDA Bhawan, Phase-8, SAS Nagar.

.…Opposite Party

Consumer Complaint under Section 47

of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Quorum:-

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member

Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

Argued By:

For the complainant : Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate

For opposite parties : Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate

KIRAN SIBAL, PRESIDING MEMBER:

The complainant has filed this complaint, under

Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, “the

Act”), against the opposite party, seeking following directions:

(i) To refund an amount of Rs.54,84,000/- of interest and

penal interest w.e.f. 10.09.2013 to 31.12.2018

charged by the OP arbitrarily;

(ii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation on account of

mental harassment;

(iii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

##PAGE2##

CC No.43 of 2024 -2-

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the

complainant applied for allotment of a plot under ‘General

Category’, measuring 500 Sq. yard in Aerocity Project launched

by the OP, vide advertisement dated 01.06.2010 and also paid

the required sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. She was found successful in

draw of lots and letter of intent was issued by the OP vide memo

No.GMADA-EO/2011/1068 dated 10.03.2011. After receiving

letter of intent, the complainant deposited Rs.9,00,000/- to make it

to total of Rs.15,00,000/- i.e. 25% of the total tentative price of the

plot. As per para No.6 of the letter of intent, the rest of amount

had to be deposited under options A or B or C and the

complainant opted for C, according to which the balance 70% of

the total price of plot had to be deposited in 7 half yearly

instalments along with interest @10 % p.a. Further as per para 8,

in case of non-payment of any installment by due date, the

complainant would be liable to pay interest and penalty at the

rates mentioned therein. The complainant has further stated that

as per terms and conditions of letter of intent, the OP would hand

over the plot to the complainant after completion of development

works at site within a period of 30 months from the date of

issuance of letter of intent. The period of 30 months elapsed on

10.09.2013 but OP neither allocated the plot number or issued the

allotment letter offering the plot nor returned the earnest money

along with 10% simple interest. The complainant could not get the

loan from any of the financial institution on the basis of letter of

##PAGE3##

CC No.43 of 2024 -3-

intent as the project was subject to clearance from Government of

India and other conditions possession of plot was not certain in

the letter of intent. The complainant further stated that the OP

while applying for registration of its project in the Real Estate

Regulatory Authority on 28.04.2017 admitted in affidavit cum

declaration that the Aerocity Project along with other projects

were likely to be completed on 31.12.2018. The complainant was

feeling insecure to pay the balance payment as lot of real estate

projects faced litigations and payments were stuck in the middle.

The complainant enquired about the development work at site but

no development work at site was visible and therefore, she

approached the authorities vide letter dated 03.08.2015 with the

request that charging of interest and penal interest beyond 30

months i.e. beyond 10.09.2013 is not justified and be waived but

no reply was received. However, the OP continued to issue

various notices and finally issued a Memo

No.GMADA/58673/2018 dated 21.12.2018 to deposit

Rs.91,86,029/-, which included interest and penalty for the

delayed period,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top