STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/78/2025 SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL S/o. Kidar Nath Goyal PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus M/S OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

BUSINESS ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT: ANISH VERMA (Advocate)

DATED: 24/02/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH

2. Renu Goyal, aged about 66 years, W/o Sunil Kumar Goyal, R/o House No. 1188, Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar, Patiala.

…..Complainants Versus

1. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at 10 LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through Mr. Rohtash Goel, Founder cum Chief Managing Director.

2. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. Corporate office at SCO 139-140, 1st Floor Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Chandigarh-160008 Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

3. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at Omaxe City, 111 Milestone, Near Bad Ke Balaji Bus Stand, Jaipur-Ajmer Expressway, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -302026 Through Authorised signatory or Managing Director

4. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. Office at India Trade Tower, First Floor, Baddi-Kurali Road, New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, District-S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab-140901, through authorized signatory or Managing Director.

....Opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER PRESENT: Sh. Anish Verma, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Tajeshwar Singh, Advocate for opposite parties alongwith Sh.Aryan Bajaj, Advocate.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The facts in brief are that the Complainants purchased a residential unit bearing No.

TLC/CASPEAN-D/NINTH/901 in the project “THE LAKE” at Omaxe New Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Unit”) from the opposite parties vide Allotment Letter/Agreement dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure C-3) for a total sale consideration of Rs.81,78,600/- along with applicable G.S.T. The Complainants, having paid substantial consideration, are consumers of the opposite parties. As per the terms and conditions contained in the Allotment Letter dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure C-3), the opposite parties agreed to deliver actual physical possession of the Unit, subject to compliance with prevailing rules and laws, within 42 months from the date of the Agreement, i.e., by July 2018. The said period was extendable by 6 months only in case of force majeure circumstances. The initial booking amounts were paid vide receipts dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure C-4 and Annexure C-5). The Complainants made regular payments without any delay whenever demands were raised. By July 2019 (i.e., the stipulated possession deadline), the Complainants had paid a total sum of Rs.65 lacs to the opposite parties. After July 2019, the opposite parties stopped issuing any demand letters or providing updates regarding the status of the project. Despite repeated telephonic attempts made by the Complainants to ascertain the possession status, no definite response or progress report was provided. The opposite parties merely cited COVID-19 or other vague and irrelevant reasons without furnishing any concrete timeline for completion. After an unexplained gap of nearly six years, the opposite parties raised a fresh demand on 18.06.2025 for approximately Rs.3,60,000/-, which the Complainants paid on 02.07.2025. The statement reflecting payment of the said amount is Annexure C-7. Consequently, the total amount paid by the Complainants till July 2025 stood around Rs.69 lacs. It was only thereafter that the Complainants came to know that the project remained incomplete in all material respects, including basic infrastructure, and was still not ready for possession. The Complainants invested their hard-earned