BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Jatin Banswal, Advocate for the appellant

None for respondents No.1 to 4 (proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.03.2026)

None for respondent No.5

PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant – Sh. Prit Inder Pal Singh (appellant herein) seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission'), while partly allowing his Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2024 against opposite parties No.1 to 4 (respondents no.1 to 4 herein) as under:-

“4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint along with connected complaints is/are partly allowed and OPs No.1 to 4 is directed as under :-

(i) to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.8.75 to the complainant from the respective dates of its deposit alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.

(i) to pay ₹2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

(ii) to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 to 4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) 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.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.”

In brief, the case of the appellant/complainant before the District Commission was that in 2010, opposite parties No.1 to 4 launched a real estate project, namely “PCL-Gateway West Township” at New Chandigarh, projecting it as a well-developed, fully approved, world-class township with modern amenities and promising completion and delivery of possession by 2014. Induced by such representations and assurances, the complainant agreed to purchase a 250 sq. yd. residential plot for a total consideration of ₹21.75 lakhs, obtained membership and paid ₹6 lakhs in 2011, followed by further payments of ₹2.75 lakhs in 2014, totaling ₹8.75 lakhs. Despite this, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 neither allotted any specific plot nor executed any buyer’s agreement and instead kept raising additional demands and delaying the process. The complainant was also persuaded to initiate a housing loan through opposite party No.5, leading to execution of a tripartite agreement and payment of processing charges. Even after lapse of more than 12 years from booking, the project remained incomplete and possession was not delivered, allegedly in violation of statutory provisions including PAPRA. Repeated requests and a legal notice dated 20.09.2023 yielded no result and the prolonged delay of about 9 years in handing over possession was alleged to constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice leading to filing of the consumer complaint before the District Commission.

On the other hand, pursuant to the notice issued by the District Commission, opposite parties No.1 to 4 entered appearance; however, having failed to file their written statement within the stipulated period, their right to file reply was struck off by the District Commission vide order dated 06.08.2024.

However, opposite party No.5 resisted the consumer complaint by filing its written version stating that the complainant failed to disclose any cause of action against it and as such, prayed for deletion of its name from the array of the parties and that the complaint was not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on its part. It was further stated that the grievance of the complainant was only against opposite parties No.1 to 4 who failed to deliver the possession as per the internal arrangement between the parties, whereas, on merits, it was stated that the complainant independently on his own volition approa