Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This is a case in which approach of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (VI) New Delhi in dealing with Complaint Case No.196 of 2020 was rather unique and unusual. The Appellants who were the Complainants had booked an Apartment for themselves with the Respondent/OP No.1 on 19.3.2010. The letter of allotment was issued in their favour by the said Respondent on 3.12.2010. The Builder-Buyer Agreement was thereafter signed on 1.3.2011. On 24.10.2015 the Respondent issued a letter offering possession of the Apartment and demanded certain balance payments from them, which they claim to have paid on 11.11.2015. The Respondent thereafter issued Possession Certificate in their favour on 7.5.2016. Consequently, keys of the Apartment were handed over to the Appellants/Complainants, who, however, found that the Apartment was altogether uninhabitable and at a great variance with what had been originally promised/represented to them. The Complainants claimed that not only the lawn space which was to be provided to them on the back side of their Apartment was wrongly included in the green belt area, but the Respondent also realized excessive payments on the pretext that there had been an increase in the super area of the Apartment which according to the Complainants was incorrect. Subsequently, on 22.3.2017 the Respondent demanded an additional amount of Rs.32,572/- towards VAT payment charges. Besides, the Appellants/Complainants were compelled to pay maintenance charges to the Respondent/OP No.2, which is a Company effectively controlled by the Respondent No.1 itself through the close relatives of its own Managerial Personnel. But no meaningful maintenance services were ever provided by Respondent No. 2, nor the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the Apartment was executed in favour of the Complainants by the Opposite Parties, which compelled them to stop payment of any further maintenance charges after March 2020.

2. In view of such improper conduct imputed to the Respondent, the Complainants/Appellants on 21.12.2020 filed the aforesaid Complaint case in which they also impleaded various officials of the Haryana Government, the Municipal Corporation, the Electricity Distribution Corporation as well as Haryana Electricity Board as Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 8 in the Complaint, and sought the following reliefs against them -

                          "A) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to pay interest on the total cost/price/sale consideration of the unit i.e. Rs. 43,37,553/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Three) at the rate of 12% per annum for five years amounting to Rs. 26,02,532/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Two) for continuing delay in registration of the unit as per the agreement.

                          B) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to refund a total of Rs. 6,26,854.4/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Four and Forty Paisa) for charging excess on account of super area.

                          C) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to refund various charges and taxes taken by it but not paid to the concerned authorities (Opposite Party No. 3 to 7) EDC for Rs. 3,75,173/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Three), Service tax for Rs. 61,526/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six) vat for Rs. 32,572/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Two) and other Misc. Charges.

                          D) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to pay damages for Rs. 12 Lakh for poor quality of construction work much below the standard of a decent flat.

                          E) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to pay Rs. 7,37,448/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight) for loss of garden area because of alteration in basic plan by converting our garden into green belt area.

                          F) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to refund life membership of their Club for Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand).

                          G) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for mental torture, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and cheating.

                          H) Direct Opposite Party No. 2 to refund the maintenance charges paid so far till March 2020.

                          I) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for litigation expenses/cost.

                          J) Direct Opposite Party No. 3, 4 and 5 to recover the EDC and other charges and taxes from opposite party No. 1 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

                          K) Direct the Opposite Party No. 3 to 8 to do external and internal development of the project to make it perfect place of residence as promised by opposite party no. 1 in brochure.

                          L) Direct Opposite Party No. 1 to provide completion certificate and get the unit registered in the name of complainants."

3. The Complaint was contested only by Respondent/OP No.1 while the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 (i.e. Respondent No. 2) did not appear in spite of service, and were, therefore, proceeded against ex parte on 11.7.2022. On the same date, the Opposite Party No.8 was deleted from the array of the parties by the District Forum. After considering the defense put in by the Respondent/OP No.1, the Ld. District Forum on 17.1.2023 awarded certain reliefs to the Complainants which are set out below -

                          "24. We, thus, hold that OP No. 1/TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and OP No. 2 was guilty of deficiency in services. We accordingly direct OP No. 1/TDI Infrastructure Ltd. to refund the amount Rs. 43,37,553/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Three) to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order, failing which OP No. 1 will be liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. for the delayed period. We award compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) each to each complainant to be paid by OP No. 1 and 2 as OP No. 1 had charged excess amount in the name of super area whereas no extra area was added in the unit of complainants and the personal garden area was converted to green belt area for obtaining completion certificate by OP No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 will also refund the excess amount charged on account of super area. OP No. 2 had taken charges for maintenance work/services which were not provided. OP No. 2 did not file written statement to rebut the said allegation, the same allegations have thus gone unrebutted. OP No. 2 is directed to refund the maintenance charges.

                          25. The complainants shall be also entitled to refund of amount paid for taxes charged by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and not paid to the government authorities. We further hold OP No. 1 liable to refund the amount collected for life membership of club amounting to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventh Five Thousand). OP No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifth Thousand).

                          26. It is to be noted Hon'ble NCDRC has in revision petition no. 1190 of 2022 titled TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Kucchal upheld the judgments of the District Commission and Hon'ble State Commission whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) was awarded to complainant."

4. The Complainants from their side filed EA No. 27 of 2013 seeking execution of the above Order. It however transpires that the aforesaid Order dated 17.1.2023 passed by the District Forum was not challenged in Appeal by the Respondents/Opposite Parties, who on the contrary filed an Application for review of the same, which was allowed by the District Forum vide its subsequent Order passed on 12.2.2024 with the following observations-

                          "17. We accordingly review the order dated `17.01.2023. Hence, the order dated 17.01.2023 be read as under:

                          "To pay the penalty for delayed possession @ Rs. 5 per Sq. Ft. per month from 01.03.2014 i.e. the date on which possession of the said flat was to be handed over by the OP in terms of builder buyer agreement dated 24.10.2015 till the date actual possession was offered by the OP to the complainant. In case of non-compliance of this order within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order (today's modified order), the OP shall be liable to pay interest over the accrued amount @ 7.5% per annum from 01.03.2014 till realization."

                          The compensation and litigation expenses awarded in the order dated 17.01.2023 shall remain the same, the same to be paid by OPNo. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

                          The application of OP No. 1 and 2 stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.

                          An application moved for cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against MD of JD-1 and 2 stands stayed till next date of hearing.

                          Be listed for compliance of order on 20.03.2024."

5. From the aforesaid observations, it also becomes manifestly clear that the Review Application was allowed by the Ld. District Forum when it was already in the process of executing its original Order dated 17.1.2023 in the pending Execution Application No. 27 of 2023.

6. The Complainants/ Appellants challenged the aforesaid Order dated 12.2.2024 passed by the Ld. District Forum in FA No.165 of 2024. The Ld. State Commission allowed the aforesaid Appeal, set aside the Order dated 12.2.2024, and substantially upheld the original Order dated 17.1.2023 of the Ld. District Forum with certain modifications.

7. In para 13 of the impugned Order, the Ld. State Commission had specifically observed that the Order dated 12.2.2024 having been passed by the District Forum in execution proceedings while deciding a Review Application which was filed for reviewing the Order itself under execution, was one without jurisdiction and therefore a void order. In addition, the Ld. State Commission was of the view that the original relief granted to the Complainants in the earlier Order dated 17.1.2023 was justified in the overall facts and circumstances especially considering that possession had been delivered to the Complainants without the mandatory Occupancy Certificate, and in absence of which, no Deed of Conveyance in their favour could be lawfully executed.

8. The Appellants thereafter filed the instant Appeal on 26.9.2025 on which date it was mentioned before Bench No.1 of this Commission presided over by the Hon'ble President who directed that the same be placed before this Bench at 2 p.m. on the same date. Consequently, the matter was taken up for consideration by this Bench at 2 p.m. on 26.9.2025, and after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants we directed that the operation of the impugned Order passed by the State Commission would remain stayed subject to the certain conditions.

9. It, however, was subsequently revealed by the Registry that a Caveat on behalf of Respondents/Complainants had already been filed on 26.8.2025, which was kept with the Listing Section and had inadvertently not been tagged with the file. The Respondents thereafter filed their separate Application for vacating the stay Order on the ground that the conditions imposed by us had not been complied with by the Appellants, which contention, however, was opposed by the Appellants whose case is that the requisite penalty for the specified period between 1.3.2024 to 24.10.2015 along with compensation on account of mental agony etc. and the litigation costs plus the accrued interest on the penalty amount had already been deposited.

10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take notice of what would appear to be certain unusual directions passed by both the Ld. Fora below. As seen from its original Order passed on 17.1.2023, the Ld. District Commission had, after holding the Opposite Parties/Appellants guilty of deficiency in service, granted the relief of refund of the entire consideration amount of Rs. 43,37,553/- paid by the Complainants/Respondents alongwith interest @ 9% p.a., apart from various other reliefs all of a monetary nature. The Ld. District Commission, however, did not record any explicit reason as to why such relief was being granted when it was never prayed for by the Complainants in the first place. This would become clear on perusal of all the prayers made in the original Complaint which have been re-produced in earlier Para 2 of this Order. It is seen that the Complainant had never prayed for refund of the entire consideration amount which was granted in her favour as if the Ld. District Commission regarded it to be a case of "no delivery of possession" at all. On the other hand, the Complainants from their side had prayed for refund of such amounts which they claimed to have been wrongly charged from them under various heads such as excess charge on account of alleged increase in the super area, statutory charges and taxes realized by the Opposite Parties from them which were allegedly not paid by them to the concerned Authorities, an additional amount of Rs. 12.00 lakhs on account of poor construction work of the dwelling Unit in question, refund of the appropriate amount for loss of the garden area which would have otherwise fallen into their share with the dwelling Unit but for alteration in the basic plan, refund of club membership charges and also compensation on account of mental torture, return of maintenance charges due to non-providing of/unsatisfactory maintenance service, and litigation expenses. Even more striking aspect of the matter is that after directing refund of the entire amounts paid by the Complainants alongwith the interest awarded upon the same, the Ld. District Commission did not even direct return of possession of the Unit in question to the Opposite Parties which would therefore clearly go to indicate that at the time of passing the Order dated 17.1.2023, the Ld. District Commission had probably not applied its mind correctly to the facts and circumstances of the case, and had in a cavalier fashion assumed it to be a case of non-delivery of possession to the Complainants.

11. The Opposite Parties/Appellants thereafter did not challenge the aforesaid Order before the superior Forum, but filed a Review Application seeking recall/modification of the Order. The Review Application was then allowed by the Ld. District Commission vide its subsequent Order passed on 12.2.2024, by virtue of which it substantially allowed the actual prayers made by the Complainants originally, and thereby recalled its aforesaid Order dated 17.1.2023. In the meantime, the Complainants/Respondents had already filed Execution Application No. 27 of 2023 before the Ld. District Commission. The Order dated 12.2.2024 was apparently passed under the caption of "EA No. 27 of 2023". Ld. State Commission thereafter set aside the aforesaid Order on appeal of the Respondents/Complainants by observing inter alia that as an Executing Court, the Ld. District Commission could not have reviewed its own original Order.

12. In our opinion, there were omissions of rather elementary nature on the part of both the Ld. Fora below. We say so because undoubtedly the power of review by the District Commission under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act is necessarily to be exercised in its own original jurisdiction and not in its capacity as an Executing Court. In all propriety, a regular number ought to have been assigned to the Review Application, which was to be thereafter decided/disposed off independently by the Ld. District Commission in exercise of its power under Section 40, as the Review was in the context of the Order passed by the Commission in its capacity as the original/trial Forum, and not in the course of Execution proceedings. So much is the visible omission on the part of the Ld. District Commission. But the Ld. State Commission in its impugned Order also would appear to have applied its mind rather mechanically in the matter by setting aside the District Commission's Order dated 12.2.2024, on the pretext that, the same could not have been passed by the said Commission during the course of execution proceedings. At any rate, if the Ld. State Commission had even otherwise found the Order to be untenable on merits, still the same could have been either set aside or suitably modified. But in any case, in a strict sense there would have been very limited scope for the State Commission to alter or interfere with the earlier Order dated 17.1.2023, which had not been independently challenged before it.

13. The Ld. State Commission, however, also modified the said previous Order dated 17.1.2023, and directed return of possession of the dwelling Unit in question to the Respondents/Complainants while affirming rest of the reliefs granted in their favour by the District Commission. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, such direction of the State Commission would appear to be an act in the nature of balancing the equities and correcting a manifest omission on the part of the Ld. District Commission in ordering refund of the entire consideration amount alongwith compensation thereupon in favour of the Complainants without directing that possession of the Unit in question be returned to the Opposite Parties, although such Order itself was not under challenge before the State Commission.

14. It was in the context of aforenoted proceedings before both the Ld. Fora below that after an extensive hearing, we passed an Order on 11.5.2026 with certain directions upon both the contesting sides, which are set out as below -

                          i) The Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1 must state on Affidavit whether it can provide Occupancy Certificate and execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant within a reasonable time of about four weeks without prejudice to the rights and contentions, outstanding claims and alleged liabilities of both sides or not, which can be finally determined subsequently;

                          ii) The Appellants/Complainants from their side must state on Affidavit whether they wish to retain possession of the Apartment, or seek refund of the consideration price paid by them alongwith appropriate compensation in the event of the Respondent/ Opposite Party No. 1 being unable to provide the Occupancy Certificate and execute the Deed of Conveyance;

                          iii) The Appellants are also directed to disclose the amount of maintenance charges paid by them which they seek to recover from the Opposite Party No. 2, which had been proceeded against Ex parte in the Ld. District Forum, and to file appropriate documents/receipts showing payment of such maintenance charges."

15. Both the sides have thereafter filed their respective Affidavits. The sum and substance of Appellant/Opposite Party No. 1's Affidavit in this regard is that it had applied to the Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana for grant of Occupancy Certification in respect of the Project in question as far back as on 9.5.2014 and thereafter again on 24.6.2024; that it has also paid compounding charges in respect of the Units which have already been taken over by the customers like the Respondent pending process of the application for issuance of Completion Certificate; that the Unit in question has been under possession of the Respondents for more than 10 years during which it has suffered wear and tear which ought to be attributed to them and, having accepted possession of premises, the Respondents cannot resile from proceeding forward and claim to the contrary. Finally in Para 6 of the aforesaid Affidavit, the Appellant has admitted that it is not in a position to provide an exact date for receiving the Occupancy Certificate for which the process is ongoing, although it undertakes to forthwith execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the Respondents/Original Complainants as and when the Occupancy Certificate would be received.

16. The Respondents/Complainants from their side in compliance of our directions (ii) and (iii) of the Order dated 11.5.2026 in their Affidavit have stated inter alia-

                          "4. That with respect to the specific direction contained in Para 3(ii) of the Order dated 11.05.2026, the Deponent undertakes as under:

                          i. That the Deponent most respectfully undertakes to surrender possession of the said Apartment to the Appellant Opposite Party No. 1. provided that the Deponent receives the entire consideration amount along with the interest and compensation awarded by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. vide its Order dated 19.08.2025. The Deponent humbly requests that this complete amount (which amounts to Rs 1,31,35,666.37 i.e. One Crore Thirty One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six Rupees and Thirty Seven Paise as on 31.05.2026) be remitted in a single lump sum, either by depositing the same before this Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or by paying it directly to the Respondents. It is further most humbly submitted that the relief granted vide the aforementioned Order dated 19.08.2025 represents the minimum reparation necessary to alleviate the substantial hardships already endured by the Deponent due to the defaults committed by the Appellant. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission, a calculation sheet detailing the amounts due as per the Ld. SCDRC's order is annexed hereto as Annexure R/AF-1.

                          5. That with respect to the direction contained in Para 3(iii) of the Order dated 11.05.2026 regarding the disclosure of maintenance charges paid by the Deponent to Opposite Party No. 2, it is stated that Respondent No. 2, who is the co-complainant, paid a total sum of Rs 88,216/- i.e. Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Sixteen Rupees only towards the said maintenance charges through cheques bearing numbers, 665442 (cleared on 09.05.2017), 665443 (cleared on 09.05.2017), 110290 (cleared on 17.11.2018), 110296 (cleared on 14.02.2019) and 110301 (cleared on 15.05.2019) and amounting to Rs 21,003/-, Rs 21,003/-, Rs 5,801/-, Rs 8082/- and Rs 32,327/- respectively drawn on his State Bank of India account having number 31608372209, located at District Court Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi, all these transactions are clearly reflected in his bank account statement. It is humbly brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Commission that Opposite Party No. 2 failed to issue formal receipts for all the payments. When asked for the same, they routinely made excuses such as their server being down, or misled the Respondents by stating that receipts were unnecessary since the payments were made via cheque. Therefore, a separate statement along with the relevant State Bank of India statement evidencing these encashed cheques and copies of the few receipts that were actually provided, are being annexed herewith as Annexure R/AF-2 (Colly) to establish the payment of the maintenance charges."

17. Further, in Para 6 & 7 of the aforesaid Affidavit, the Complainants have also essentially sought to emphasize that there is a very little probability of the Appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 being able to provide the Occupancy Certificate within a reasonable time since the Occupancy Certificate for several other Projects of the Opposite Parties are pending and the said Opposite Party was also black listed by the statutory Authorities and punished with heavy penalties by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal after their Project "Tuscan Floors" was declared lapsed by the HRERA in 2022.

18. From the statements of the Complainants as made in Para 4(i) of their aforesaid Affidavit, it becomes clear that now they are inclined to surrender the Apartment in question to the Opposite Party No. 1 subject to the very stringent condition of payment of entire consideration amount alongwith interest and compensation as awarded by the Ld. State Commission vide its Order dated 19.8.2025, which amount comes to Rs. 1,31,35,666.37 (Rs. One Crore Thirty One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six and Thirty Seven Paisa only) as on 31.5.2026. Not only that, the Respondents also insist that such payment must have to be paid in a single lumpsum either directly or by way of deposit before this Commission, and in the event of the Appellant being unable to do so as demanded, the Respondents seek adjudication of their pending interlocutory applications.

19. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be remembered that it was never the case of the Appellants that they wanted refund of their consideration money. But in peculiar circumstances they got such relief which they had not prayed for, and now insist on extracting the same with a manifestly usurious approach, on what would appear to be unconscionably oppressive terms, notwithstanding the fact that overall conduct of the Appellants/Opposite Parties from their side is also deplorable in no small measure.

20. Since it has become amply clear from the own Affidavit of the Appellants that they are not in a position to obtain the Occupancy Certificate or execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Respondents/Complainants within a reasonable time, so in our opinion, the most practical solution would be to have possession of the Apartment in question to be returned to them from the Respondents/Complainants subject to reasonable terms and conditions. It goes without saying that first of all the Appellants must refund the entire consideration price received by them alongwith reasonable compensation. Besides, they also need to compensate the Complainants on account of their failure to execute the Deed of Conveyance for an inordinately long time, and for which delay the Complainants are in no way responsible.

21. Admittedly, possession of the Apartment in question was delivered to the Complainants in whatever condition on 24.10.2015, so in our opinion relying upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Wing Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes, (2020) 16 SCC 512", we hold that the Complainants would be entitled to refund of their entire money paid alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. till 24.10.2015 from the respective date of each payment. Admittedly, the Complainants have been in possession of the Apartment for nearly 11 years thereafter although they claim that no proper services for maintenance were provided. We therefore hold that they would be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 500/- per day for each day's delay in failure to provide them with the Occupancy Certificate and to execute the Deed of Conveyance in their favour.

22. The Appellant No. 2/Opposite Party No. 2, who did not contest the proceedings before the Ld. District Forum are directed to refund the maintenance amount of Rs. 82,216/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. to the Complainants from the date of each respective payment in this regard.

23. In addition, litigation costs assessed at Rs. 1.00 lakh are separately awarded in favour of the Respondents/Complainants.

24. The Appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to make payment of the amount thus awarded to the Appellants/Complainants in a lumpsum manner within 03 months from the date of this Order, failing which compensation @ Rs. 500/- per day shall continue to accumulate against them till the outstanding amount is paid to the Complainants finally, till which time the Complainants shall continue to remain in possession of the Apartment in question. They shall however deliver back possession of the Apartment to the Appellants/Opposite Parties as soon as the actual amount awarded in their favour is delivered/offered to them by the Appellants. Further, the Complainants, if they so like, would also be at liberty to put this Order into execution in case the amounts awarded to them are not paid by the Appellants/Opposite Parties within the time specified.

25. With the aforesaid observations, the instant Appeal is disposed off after modifying the impugned Order dated 19.8.2025 passed by the Ld. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 165 of 2024.

26. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.