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

Appeal No. : 144 of 2025 Date of Institution : 04.04.2025 Date of Decision : 26.02.2026

1. Uttam Chand Chowdhary S/o Mr. Jagarnath Chowdhary

2. Meena Kumari W/o Sh. Uttam Chand Chowdhary Both residents of Biara (752), Biara Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh - 176103 ...Appellants/Complainants VERSUS

1. CREDO Assets Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Director, Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.

146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043

2. M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director/Directors, Plot No. 1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab -

140308 ..Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER Mr. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellants Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainants (appellants herein) have filed the instant appeal seeking modification of the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 vide which the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’), has allowed their consumer complaint bearing No.311 of 2022 by granting following relief:-

“13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

i) to deliver actual physical possession of the apartment in question, to the complainants, complete in all respects, after obtaining occupation and completion certificates from the competent Authorities.

ii) to pay delayed compensation @9% p.a. on the deposited amount from w.e.f. 1.1.2021 till handing over the actual possession of the apartment in question.

iii) to pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant/s as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

iv) to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

14. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(ii)], till realisation, over and above compliance of directions at sr. no. (i)&(iv.

15. The complainants shall pay the remaining outstanding amount of Rs.3,69,660/- to the OPs at the time of taking the possession.”

2] The short contention raised by the appellants/complainants in the present appeal is that despite the fact that the District Commission vide its order dated 24.05.2024 allowed amendment for insertion in the prayer clause that the opposite parties be directed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainants within time bound manner, yet it did not award the said relief while allowing the consumer complaint.

3] On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents/opposite parties that the appellants/complainants are not taking possession in order to avoid paying annual maintenance charges and are not interest in the unit in question. It is further their contention that the sale deed/conveyance deed is secondary to possession and in terms of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, possession can be offered and accepted without sale deed.

3] We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and going through the impugned order, the grounds of appeal, the record of the District Commission and the written arguments, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is liable to be partly accepted to the extent of directing the respondents/opposite parties to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the appellants/complainants, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

4] First of all, the contentions raised by the respondents/ opposite parties are misconceived and legally unsust