Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2290

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, President, BIMLA KUMARI, Member
OMAXE BUILDHOME PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
MONICA TIWARI – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 323/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Harmeet Grover
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani

Unilateral change of allotted unit without consent constitutes deficiency in service; District Forum has jurisdiction based on claimed refund amount, not total unit value; onus on opposite party to prove commercial purpose.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11(1) - Pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum - Where opposite party unilaterally changes allotted unit without consent and fails to prove cost of changed unit, claim limited to refund of deposited amount plus interest and compensation falls within pecuniary limit of rupees twenty lakhs. (Paras 9-12)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Mere allegation that unit purchased for commercial purpose insufficient without documentary proof; onus on opposite party to establish purchase not for personal use. (Paras 13-17)

(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11(2) - Territorial jurisdiction - Forum at place where opposite party carries on business or has office has jurisdiction over deficiency in service claims, notwithstanding location of property. (Paras 18-23)

(D) Deficiency in service - Unilateral change of allotted unit without consent after payments made towards original unit, despite requests for NOC and loan documents, constitutes arbitrary action and failure to discharge contractual obligations. (Paras 24-29)

Facts of the case:
Complainants booked unit in project, paid booking amount and instalments towards specific unit, sought NOC for bank loan and inclusion of co-owner. Opposite party instead changed allotment to different unit without consent, later cancelled original allotment and forfeited earnest money. District Commission directed refund with interest, holding deficiency in service. Appeal challenged jurisdiction, consumer status, and merits.

Findings of Court:
District Commission had pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction; complainants are consumers; opposite party deficient in service by arbitrarily changing allotment without consent. Appeal dismissed, impugned order upheld. (Para 30)

Issues: (1) Pecuniary jurisdiction based on claimed relief versus total unit value; (2) Whether complainants qualify as consumers or purchased for commercial purpose; (3) Territorial jurisdiction given property location; (4) Deficiency in service from unilateral allotment change and cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi: District Forum's jurisdiction determined by relief claimed (refund plus interest/compensation) where unilateral allotment change lacks consent; consumer status upheld absent proof of commercial intent; territorial jurisdiction exists where opposite party has business presence; unilateral change without consent is deficiency.

Result: Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 31)

Table of Content
1. factual background of booking, payments, and unilateral allotment change. (Para 1 , 26 , 27 , 28)
2. district commission upheld jurisdiction and found op deficient. (Para 2)
3. appellant argues lack of jurisdiction and no service deficiency. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 25)
4. pecuniary jurisdiction based on claimed amount, not unit value. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. op must prove commercial purpose; respondents are consumers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. territorial jurisdiction valid where op has office in delhi. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. unilateral allotment change constitutes service deficiency. (Para 24 , 29)
8. appeal dismissed; district order upheld. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Complainants have requested to pass an award directing M/s Omaxe Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to recall the cancellation letter & to issue revised demand note. And in case, the unit is not available, OP may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,94,375/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realisation. (ii) To pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental anguish etc.

(iii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The complainant booked a unit measuring 1700 Sq. Ft. in the "Omaxe Palm Greens" at Sector-MU-Greater NOIDA. The complainant paid Rs.6,40,000/- vide receipt No.8844239 dated 03.10.2006. The same is annexed at Annexure-A. OP confirmed the booking and allotted Unit No.203 on II Floor in Spear Palm B tower vide allotment letter dated 21.09.2007. On the receipt of demand letters, the complainants paid Rs.4,54,375/- vide DD dated 17.07.2008 for which OP issued receipt No.317964 dated 18.07.2008 (copy is annexed as Annexure-C). Complainant No.-2 Mr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari vide its letter dated 06.08.2008 assigned 50% undivided share in favour of his wife, Monica Tiwari. The complainant requested OP to give NOC in favour of Canara Bank, Dehradun so as to enable them to avail home loan facility. Copy of same letter dated 06.08.2008 is enclosed as Annexure-D. Again the complainant requested OP vide letter dated 09.09.2008 to provide status of earlier letter (same is Annexed as Annexure E). The OP required certain documents for inclusion of name of Monica Tiwari. The same was complied with by complainant NO 1. The complainant requested General Manager of Customer Relation of OP to provide NOC. All necessary documents were submitted to above-mentioned office of OP vide letter dated 04.11.2008 (some is enclosed as Annexure-G). Instead to issuance of NOC, the OP vide its letter dated 18.09.2009 informed thất the company, i.e. OP had changed the allotment of the complainants and allotted another flat in the other Tower. Copy of letter dated 18.09.2009 is annexed as Annexure H. The complainants received a letter dated 11.08.2011 in which OP intimated that the allotment had been cancelled and Rs. 6,56,625/- had been forfeited. As such, the non-issuance of NOC, shifting of allotment in other Tower and suo moto cancellation led to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Hence complaint.

OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections. The OP stated that as per clause 53 of allotment letter & Agreement, dispute between parties had to be resolved through arbitration. Further, it was alleged that this Hon'ble Forum did not have requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain present complaint because total cost of the flat in question was approx. Rs.52,25,600/ much more than Rs.20,00,000/-. The complaint is barred by time and deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone. No unfair trade practice or deficiency in service is involved in the matter. The OP vide its reply has invoked the clause 22, 23 and 24 of allotment letter dated 06.11.2008 vide which the complainants are required to pay 15% as basic sale consideration as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2290

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONSANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, President, BIMLA KUMARI, MemberOMAXE BUILDHOME PVT LTD – AppellantVersusMONICA TIWARI – RespondentFIRST APPEAL NO. 323/2023

Unilateral change of allotted unit without consent constitutes deficiency in service; District Forum has jurisdiction based on claimed refund amount, not total unit value; onus on opposite party to prove commercial purpose.

Cases Referred (1)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, President, BIMLA KUMARI, Member
OMAXE BUILDHOME PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
MONICA TIWARI – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 323/2023