Punjab State Commission Holds Sukhm Infrastructure Liable For Non-Delivery Of Commercial Plot; Orders Refund

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President), Simarjot Kaur (Member), and Vishav Kant Garg (Member), has held M/s Sukhm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial plot. The Commission allowed the complaint and directed a full refund with interest, along with compensation and litigation costs. Brief Facts Dr. Harshdeep Singh Nat and Rosy Nat (Complainants) had initially approached M/s Yellowstone Builders Pvt. Ltd. in 2015 to purchase a commercial property in Yellowstone Landmark Infocity, Mohali, with the intention of establishing a specialized hospital. A letter of allotment was issued to them on 19.11.2015 after they deposited ₹62,61,838. Subsequently, on 29.04.2017, a Buyer-Seller Agreement was executed with Sukhm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No.1), an associate of Yellowstone Builders. The complainants paid the full sale consideration of ₹1,71,46,500, on the assurance that possession of the plot would be delivered within 12–15 months of the execution of the sale deed. However, despite the lapse of nearly four years, possession was never offered. During this period, the original company underwent multiple mergers, ultimately becoming Aeropolis Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No.2). Aggrieved by the non-delivery, the complainants approached RERA in 2021, which directed the builders to pay 9.30% interest from 29.07.2020 until delivery of possession after obtaining the Completion Certificate. This order was never complied with. In view of the continued non-compliance and the prolonged delay, the complainants then approached the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a refund with 18% interest, ₹20 lakh as compensation, and litigation costs. Sukhm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No.1) argued that the delay was not intentional but was caused by regulatory hurdles, administrative issues, and multiple corporate mergers. It was contended that the agreed timeline for possession was subject to external approvals. Acknowledging that possession could not be delivered in the foreseeable future, counsel for the OPs stated that the company was willing to refund the entire amount paid by the complainants along with reasonable interest. Observations by the Commission The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that possession of the commercial plot had not been offered to the complainants even after several years from the execution of the Buyer-Seller Agreement. The Commission held that such an inordinate delay clearly amounted to deficiency in service. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, it reiterated that a purchaser cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession and is entitled to seek a refund along with appropriate compensation. While examining the maintainability of the complaint, the Commission noted that although the property was commercial in nature, the complainants—both NRIs—had booked the unit for the purpose of establishing a specialized hospital to earn their livelihood in India. Since the Consumer Protection Act excludes purchases made exclusively for livelihood through self-employment from the ambit of “commercial purpose”, the Commission held that the complainants qualified as consumers under the Act. The Commission further observed that the opposite parties had failed to comply with the RERA order passed in 2021, which had directed payment of 9.30% interest from 29.07.2020 until delivery of possession after obtaining the Completion Certificate. The OPs neither complied with the direction nor offered possession, amounting to continued deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Commission further observed that the OPs had failed to comply with the RERA order. It noted that RERA had already ordered the refund along with 9.30% interest in 2021, but the OPs did not follow it or give possession. In view of the substantial delay and continued non-compliance, the Commission found the OPs liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Given the prolonged delay and the builder's admitted inability to hand over possession, the Commission allowed the complaint. It directed the opposite parties to: Refund ₹1,71,46,500, the total amount deposited by the complainants,Pay interest at 9.30% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until realization,Pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation, andPay ₹50,000 as litigation costs. The Commission also held that if these amounts were not paid within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the payable amounts. Case Title: Dr.Harshdeep Singh Nat vs Sukhm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd CC No.28 of 2023 Click Here To...

Punjab State Commission Holds Sukhm Infrastructure Liable For Non-Delivery Of Commercial Plot; Orders Refund

Muhammed Razik

Tags