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) 1212

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OM PRAKASH GROVER & SONS – Appellant
Versus
M/S SATYA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD – Respondent
SC/7/A/242/2024



Petitioner Advocates:L.M GROVER ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

A/242/2024 DOD: 27.02.2026

OM PRAKASH GROVER & SONS (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA OM PRAKASH

GROVER VS. M/S. SATYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 05.04.2024

Date of Hearing: 15.12.2025

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026

FIRST APPEAL NO.- 242/2024

IN THE MATTER OF

OM PRAKASH GROVER & SONS(HUF)

THROUGH ITS KARTA

OM PRAKASH GROVER,

AT: 23/21-AB, TILAK NAGAR

NEW DLEHI: 110018.

(Through: L.M. Grover & Alok Tiwari, Advocates)

…Appellant

VERSUS

M/S. SATYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

PLOT 8, SECTOR-44, GURUGRAM,

HARYANA- 122002

ALSO, AT: -

34, BABAR LANE, BENGALI MARKET,

NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Kaadambari Singh, Advocate)

…Respondent

DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9

##PAGE2##

A/242/2024 DOD: 27.02.2026

OM PRAKASH GROVER & SONS (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA OM PRAKASH

GROVER VS. M/S. SATYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. L.M. Grover, counsel for the Appellant appeared

through VC.

Mr. Kaadambari Singh (Senior Advocate) [on VC] and

Mr. Girish Kalara Counsel for the respondent Mr.

Ashish Tyagi, AR of the respondent

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 41 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking to set aside the impugned order

dated 22.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission-III (West), C-Block, Community Centre, Pankha Road,

Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 24/31 filed by the

Appellant/Complainant against the Respondent/Opposite Party. Vide the

impugned order dated 22.02.2024, the District Commission dismissed the

complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant as non-maintainable in the

following terms:

“1.Case of the Complainant argued at the admission stage on the

basis of pleadings on record are that complainant, Karta of Hindi

Undivided Family (HUF) came into contact with OP company

engaged in real-estate business in 2012 when OP was launching a

project namely 'Hermitage' at Gurgaon Haryana in which

complainant booked a unit no. 6, Tower no. 8, 5th Floor for total

sale consideration of Rs. 41,37,394/- vide builder buyer agreement

dated 05-03-2012. The complainant made initial payments of Rs.

15,83,494/- and Rs. 41,500/- to OP between October, 2012 to

DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9

##PAGE3##

A/242/2024 DOD: 27.02.2026

OM PRAKASH GROVER & SONS (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA OM PRAKASH

GROVER VS. M/S. SATYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

December, 2012 and the total amount as claimed by complainant to

have been paid to OP is Rs. 33,93,134/-. However, OP started

sending demand notices in February, 2013 and reminders to pay

between April to July 2013 to the complainant without specifying

whether requisite work on the project has been completed or not but

complainant was unable to make representation against such

demands due his old age and OP cancelled the allotment unit vide

letter dated 12-08-2013. Complainant could made the

representation against this cancellation only on 22-01-2016 vide e-

mail to OP in reply to which OP vide e-mail dated 25-01-2016

apprised the complainant that super structure of building, internal

and external plaster work and flooring work of the unit has been

completed and that possession of structure would be planned in

second quarter of 2016 but just a day thereafter, OP vide e-mail

dated 27-01-2016 asked the complainant to ignore his previous e-

mail and reiterated the cancellation notice dated 12-01-2013.

Complainant wrote e-mail in 2018 to OP to relook into the matter

but to no avail. Thereafter complainant visited office in the end of

2023 asking for either refund of the paid sum or allotment of an

alternate unit but neither was done by OP. Therefore, by way of

present complaint, complainant has prayed for relief against OP by

way of issuance of directions to refund Rs. 33,93,134/- with 9% p.a.

interest to the complainant or in the alternate grant possession of

the allotted unit. Complainant has attached HUF gift deed, Builder

Buyer Agree

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