Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2252
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Daya Chaudhary, President, Vishav Kant Garg, Member
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) – Appellant
Versus
Leena Khaneja – Respondent
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019|C.C. No. 212 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Ms. Twinkle Verma, Advocate for Ms. Swati Dayalan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
Failure to deliver apartment possession despite payments and invalid completion certificate constitutes service deficiency, entitling refund with interest and reduced compensation.
Headnote:The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 governs appeals from district commissions. Complainant applied for apartment allotment in 2012 scheme, paid substantial amounts, succeeded in draw of lots, received Letter of Intent promising possession within 36 months, but possession delayed beyond 2015 due to project incompletion. Court found deficiency in service as project lacked valid completion certificate and physical possession not handed over despite demands. District Commission awarded refund with 8% interest and compensation, modified on appeal. Issues framed include whether failure to deliver possession constitutes deficiency, validity of completion certificate, and entitlement to refund post-allotment letter. Ratio holds that allottee entitled to refund with 8% compounded interest per scheme terms if possession not provided; invalid completion certificate without site verification details proves project incomplete; pandemic delay admitted but does not absolve prolonged delay from 2012 scheme launch. Appeal partly allowed; refund of Rs.74,96,850/- with 8% interest from deposits affirmed, compensation reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant paid for apartment allotment but possession delayed indefinitely. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. appellants argue investment motive; respondent claims service deficiency. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. project incomplete per invalid completion certificate. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. refund with interest due; compensation justified but reduced. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. appeal partly allowed with modified compensation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. GMADA & Anr., have filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Leena Khaneja had been allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had applied for allotment of Type III Apartment in the scheme launched by the OPs, namely, Purab Premium Apartment. He had submitted Application No. 28711 alongwith the amount of Rs.6,90,000/- with the OPs and deposited all the required documents. She had arranged said funds by availing loan from SBI and had paid interest to the tune of Rs.18,320/- on the said amount. The Complainant was successful in the draw of lots for Type-III Apartment held on 20.03.2012. On 22.05.2012, the OPs had issued Letter of Intent in favour of the Complainant. Tentative price of the Apartment was fixed as Rs.69.00 lakhs and the fixed time period for handing over the possession was 36 months from the date of issuance of LoI, which was upto 22.05.2015. Thereafter, on different dates following payments have been made:-
| Sr. No. | Amount (Rs.) | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6,90,000/- | 03.01.2012 |
| 2 | 13,80,000/- | 14.05.2012 |
| 3 | 10,16,600/- | 17.11.2012 |
| 4 | 9,71,750/- | 18.05.2013 |
| 5 | 9,26,900/- | 16.11.2013 |
| 6 | 8,82,050/- | 17.05.2014 |
| 7 | 8,37,200/- | 18.11.2014 |
| 8 | 7,92,350/- | 20.05.2015 |
| Total | 74,96,850/- | |
4. It was mentioned in Clause 3 (ii) of the LoI that the allottee had the right to withdraw from the scheme. On moving such an Application, the Authority was to refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant alongwith compounded annual interest @ 8%. Allotment letter was issued on 22.03.2019 vide which the Apartment No. 1402, Tower-V, Block-B, Floor-13, Type III was allotted. It was also mentioned that the allottee was required to take the physical possession of the Apartment within 30 days. Thereafter, the OPs had demanded balance amount of 5% i.e. Rs.3,45,000/-, maintenance charges for 3 years @ Rs.1.25/- per sq. ft. of super area i.e. Rs.1,40,992/- and 2% as Welfare Society Charges i.e. Rs.1,38,000/-, which in total comes to Rs.6,32,992/-. It was averred that the demand of 3 years maintenance charges to the tune of Rs.1,40,992/- was an illegal and unjustified act on the part of the OPs.
5. The Complainant was ready to take the possession of the Apartment and on approaching the OPs in the month of April, 2019, she had noticed that the Apartment was not ready for possession. She was informed by the OPs that work was still going on and the Apartment would be handed over as and when the project was complete. Time and again in November, 2019, December, 2019, March, 2020, June, 2020, August, 2020 and January, 2021, she had approached the OPs in this regard but of no use. Legal notice was also sent on 02.02.2021 informing that the development at the site was incomplete and inspite of assurance the possession of the plot was not handed over.
6. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the allotment letter dated 22.03.2019 be set aside and the OPs be directed to issue fresh allotment lette
