District consumer redressal commission orders refund to an Army veteran who bought a ₹1.4 crore duplex in Maya Garden City, Zirakpur, after the panel found that the builder handed over possession without mandatory approvals, delivered a smaller covered area than what was paid for, and permitted an RWA to operate without legal authority .
The order came on a complaint filed by Colonel Romesh Ghai (retd) and his daughter, represented by counsels Luv Malhotra and Sartaj Khan, who took possession of the unit in December 2016.
The complainants said they purchased a combined 6BHK duplex with an agreed covered area of 5,110 sq. ft but received only 4,769 sq. ft. They said the builder handed over the flat without obtaining the completion and occupation certificates required under Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (PAPRA), rendering the so-called possession incomplete in the eyes of the law. Despite this, maintenance charges began to be collected through an RWA that, they said, had been formed prematurely and without the occupation certificate.
The builder denied any deficiency. It argued that partial completion certificates for certain blocks were sufficient to offer possession and maintained that the absence of a final occupation certificate did not affect the family’s ability to live in the duplex. It further submitted that maintenance charges were being collected by the RWA, not the company, and that the difference in covered area did not translate into actual financial loss. The builder maintained that it had delivered the unit as per specifications.
The commission disagreed, holding that the documents cited by the company did not amount to valid completion or occupation certificates under PAPRA, making the possession given in 2016 “not legally complete”. It observed that forming and allowing the RWA to collect maintenance before issuance of the occupation certificate was impermissible, rendering its collections unauthorised.
{{/usCountry}}The commission disagreed, holding that the documents cited by the company did not amount to valid completion or occupation certificates under PAPRA, making the possession given in 2016 “not legally complete”. It observed that forming and allowing the RWA to collect maintenance before issuance of the occupation certificate was impermissible, rendering its collections unauthorised.
{{/usCountry}}On the issue of covered area, the panel said the buyers had paid for 5,110 sq. ft but received only 4,769 sq. ft, a shortfall of 342 sq. ft that could not be treated as negligible and therefore entitled them to a refund. It also found that the family had paid ₹5.45 Lakh in maintenance charges that could not have been levied through an RWA functioning without legal standing. The panel concluded that the builder’s failure to obtain mandatory approvals within a reasonable time amounted to deficiency in service.
In its final directions, the commission ordered the builder to refund the amount charged for the undelivered 342 sq. ft and return the ₹5.45 Lakh collected as maintenance. It further directed the company to secure valid completion and occupation certificates and supply copies to the complainants, ensure all promised facilities and infrastructure are provided in the project, and pay 12% annual interest on the entire sale consideration from the date of filing of the complaint until statutory certificates are obtained. The builder has also been asked to pay ₹75,000 as litigation cost and to comply with the order within 45 days of receiving it.
The ruling brings together all major findings, possession without mandatory approvals, shortfall in covered area, premature functioning of the RWA and unauthorised maintenance collections.
The decision was pronounced by the district consumer disputes redressal commission, Ropar, camp court, SAS Nagar (Mohali).