Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders WTC Noida to Refund ₹69.8 Lakh for Non-Delivery of Units, Finds Deficiency in Service
Pranav B Prem
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held WTC Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd. and its directors liable for deficiency in service after they failed to deliver two units in the “WTC Chandigarh Aerocity, Mohali” project despite receiving nearly 70 percent of the total sale consideration from the complainant. The Bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Member Preetinder Singh proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties, who did not appear despite service, and delivered the order on December 1, 2025.
The complainant, Malvinder Singh Chatha, had booked two units in July 2022 by paying a total of ₹69,80,904, which accounted for about seventy percent of the total project cost of ₹1 crore. He asserted that the opposite parties induced him to invest by claiming that possession would be delivered in 2023–24 and that all statutory approvals, including those from GMADA and RERA, had already been obtained. However, repeated visits to the project site revealed that no construction activity had commenced. Further, the opposite parties failed to provide approvals, layout plans, sanctioned building drawings, or the documents he repeatedly requested. Matters took a more serious turn when GMADA cancelled the project site altogether for non-payment of dues, and even the writ petition filed by the opposite parties challenging that cancellation was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In addition to the non-delivery of the units, the complainant highlighted that the opposite parties never executed a Developer-Buyer Agreement, even though they had accepted substantial amounts from him. He discovered through audit reports that more than ₹77 crore collected from allottees for the Aerocity project had been diverted to other ventures. He argued that the opposite parties had engaged in unfair trade practices and had misrepresented the status and viability of the project merely to collect funds. With no construction, no approvals, no agreement, and no refund forthcoming, he approached the Commission seeking refund, interest, compensation, and litigation costs.
The Commission observed that the opposite parties’ conduct amounted to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Since they chose not to appear and file a response, all allegations remained unrebutted. The Bench held that the opposite parties acted with an intent to deceive from the very beginning by representing that they possessed requisite approvals when they did not. Even after receiving the substantial proportion of the price, they neither commenced construction nor executed the mandatory Developer-Buyer Agreement. The Commission found that the opposite parties withheld crucial documents and approvals, and their silence during the proceedings allowed the drawing of an adverse inference against them.
The Commission held that the complainant had suffered serious mental, physical, and financial harassment due to the opposite parties’ conduct. It noted that refunding the deposited amount was the only appropriate relief in light of the admitted fact that the project had not even begun and the land itself stood cancelled. Referring to the principle that refund cases demand a higher rate of compensatory interest due to loss of opportunity and property appreciation, the Commission awarded interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the dates of deposit. In case of non-compliance within thirty days, the amount would subsequently attract interest at fifteen percent per annum until realisation.
Allowing the complaint partly, the Commission directed WTC Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, jointly and severally, to refund the entire amount of ₹69,80,904 without any deduction of TDS. They were also ordered to pay ₹75,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and ₹35,000 towards litigation costs, both amounts carrying nine percent interest per annum in case of default. The Commission further clarified that any lending bank or financial institution will hold the first charge over the refund amount to the extent of outstanding loan dues of the complainant.
Cause Title: Malvinder Singh Chatha Vs Wtc Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case No: CC No. SC/4/CC/89/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President), Hon'ble Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member)
