IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 01.10.2018 Date of hearing: 16.12.2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1292/2018 IN THE MATTER OF MS. SUNITA RANI, W/O MR. SUNIL KUMAR, R/O B-65, SARASWATI KUNJ 25, PATPARGANJ, DELHI – 110092.

(Through: Mr. Amresh Chand, Advocate)

…Complainant VERSUS

1. SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD., (FROMERLY KNOWN AS NITISHREE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.), B-111, SECTOR-5, NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH – 201301.

2. ANIL JAIN, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF OP NO.1, B-111, SECTOR-5, NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH – 201301.

(Through: Mr. Shashwat Kumar, Mr. Aman Alam & Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocates)

…Opposite Party no.1 & 2.

3. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, VIKAS PATH, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, GHAZIABAD – 201301.

(Through: Mr. Rachit Mittal, Advocate)

…Opposite Party no.3 CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Husband of the complainant None for the OP No.1 & 2.

Mr. Abhishek Sinha (on VC), Mr. Shashwat Kumar and Mr. Aman Alam, proxy counsel for Mr. Rachit Mittal, Counsel for the OP No. 3 ( Email:

office@rmlawchambers.in)

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:

a. Direct the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of the fully developed plots as per the agreement within a period of 3 months and take the balance amount as per the earlier agreement at the time of handover of the possession of the plot;

b. Direct Opposite Party No.1 to deliver alternate residential plot at the original price incase the OP No.1 and OP No.2 are not in a position to give possession of the plot as per the agreement;

c. Direct Opposite Party No.1 not to create any third-

party interest in the subject plot till the pendency of the present complaint;

d. Direct opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay the compounding interest on the deposited amount paid between 2005-2007 @ 24% for the delay in implementation of the project;

e. Grant compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards mental harassment and agony;

f. Direct Opposite parties to pay the cost/expenses of legal notice and litigation incurred by the Complainant;

g. Pass any such other/further orders which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in view of the fact and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present matter are that in the year 2005, the Complainant booked a plot admeasuring 175 sq. yds. in the project namely “Shouryapuram– NH-24‖ of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 22,23,625/- as per the demand letter issued by them. However, the Complainant objected to the total consideration of the said plot on the ground that the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to quantify the other charges. Subsequently, the Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 12,60,875/- besides EDC, PLC and other applicable charges to the Opposite Party No. 1. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 1 vide allotment letter dated 23.01.2007, allotted Plot No. D-1782 to the Complainant but the said allotment letter did not mention the date for handing over possession. Upon inquiry by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No. 1 verbally assured that possession of the said plot would be handed over in the year 2009. However, the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to deliver possession in the year 2009 and till date no possession has been handed over to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No. 1 vide letter dated 07.08.2012, demanded an amount of Rs. 12,19,203.25/- towards 80% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP). In the said letter, it was stated that the project was in full swing and that, as per the payment plan, 80% of the BSP and other