CM (M) 639/2020

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 28^th September, 2021

+

CM(M) 639/2020

TDI INFRATECH LTD. & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through

Ms. Kanika Agnihotri and Ms.

Yashodhara Gupta, Advocates.

versus

NIRUPAMA MARWAHA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through

Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Navjyot Singh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India impugning the order dated 17^th November, 2020 (hereinafter

referred to the impugned order) passed by the learned National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC” for short).

2.

Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner Company is in the business of development

of real estate in the form of integrated township comprising of residential

and commercial flats of various dimensions, residential apartments,

Villas, multiplexes and malls. The respondents had got themselves

registered for provisional allotment of a shop-cum-office admeasuring

750 sq.fit in TDI City, Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab against a

basic sale consideration of Rs.31,23,520/-. A complaint was filed by the

respondents with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Punjab, Chandigarh (“SCDRC” in short) being Complaint Case No. 631

2021:DHC:3063

CM (M) 639/2020

Page 2 of 7

of 2019 whereby they sought refund of the amount deposited by them in

respect of the said unit. The SCDRC passed the final order on 18^th

December, 2019 directing the petitioner to refund the entire amount

deposited by the respondents alongwith compensation at the rate of 12%

per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization in

accordance with the Rule 17 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004

(PPRA in short) as well as Rs 55,000/- as compensation on account of the

mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

3.

Learned counsel submitted that an appeal was preferred by the

petitioner against this order on 18^th February, 2020. Vide order dated 28^th

August, 2020, the NCDRC allowed the application for stay of the order of

the SCDRC, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire awarded

amount with up-to-date interest before the SCDRC within 10 weeks. An

application was thereafter moved before the NCDRC seeking waiver of

this deposit. Vide the impugned order, the waiver was disallowed also

observing that in the order dated 28^th August, 2020, it had been made

clear that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period,

there would be no stay.

4.

It was submitted by learned counsel that the order was unjust as it

had overlooked several important facts. It was submitted that the

respondents had purchased a commercial property and were therefore

making investment in real estate and as such were not ‘consumers’ under

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act” in short). Thus, they could

not have filed any complaint before the SCDRC. Further, it was

submitted that under the CP Act a complaint could not be filed beyond

2021:DHC:3063

CM (M) 639/2020

Page 3 of 7

two years from the date when the cause of action arose and, on that score,

as well, the complaint could not have been entertained by the SCDRC.

Furthermore, the petitioner had offered the possession of the commercial

property in light of the Partial Completion Certificate dated 15^th

September, 2015 issued by the Greater Mohali Area Development

Authority, which fact was also overlooked by the SCDRC. Reliance has

been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in IREO Grace

Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC

14andSupertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal, (2019) 17 SCC 681to submit

that once the completion certificate had been obtained by the builder, the

liability of the builder would come to an end.

5.

Learned counsel submitted that these imp