News Citation : 2026 LN (CGRERA) 21
March 09, 2026 :
Case Reference : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Raipur, has heard a complaint filed by homebuyer Srishti Agrawal against M/s Dolphin Promoters and Builders regarding alleged delays in possession and failure to provide promised facilities in a residential project known as “Dolphin Jewel-O.”
According to the complaint, Agrawal booked a flat measuring approximately 1059 sq. ft. in the project after relying on promotional material and assurances made by the developer about several amenities and services that would be available in the complex. The unit was booked for a total consideration of ₹14.51 lakh, and an initial booking amount was paid through RTGS in April 2022.
Agrawal alleged that the developer accepted payments exceeding ten percent of the total cost without first executing a registered agreement for sale, which is contrary to provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The sale agreement was later executed in April 2022 and indicated that possession of the unit would be delivered in May 2022.
However, the complainant claimed that possession was delayed by more than a year. She stated that despite repeated requests and assurances from the developer, the unit was finally handed over only in July 2023. According to her, the delay caused financial loss, mental distress, and inconvenience.
The complaint further alleged that several promised facilities were not provided even after possession. These included access to a clubhouse, a covered parking space, and other amenities such as a swimming pool, gym, jogging track, fire safety system, and round-the-clock security. The buyer also claimed that parking facilities were insufficient and that certain areas meant for parking were converted into office space.
Agrawal also raised concerns about safety and infrastructure in the project. She alleged that the fire safety system was not operational, CCTV cameras were either absent or non-functional, and the sewage treatment plant was not properly installed or maintained. According to the complaint, these deficiencies posed risks to residents and violated commitments made by the developer during marketing of the project.
Additionally, the buyer claimed that construction defects were visible in the building, including cracks in walls and floors and persistent leakage problems. She alleged that poor-quality materials and workmanship had been used during construction, leading to structural issues in multiple flats within the building.
The complainant also alleged that the developer deviated from the approved layout plan by making unauthorized changes to the project and creating commercial shops outside the originally sanctioned area. According to her, these alterations reduced common areas and adversely affected the rights of flat owners. She further claimed that the developer had formed an unauthorized association to collect maintenance charges from residents without proper legal authority.
In response, the developer denied most of the allegations and argued that the complaint was not maintainable. The developer stated that the buyer had voluntarily signed the agreement for sale and accepted possession of the flat. It also claimed that the booking amount paid earlier was part of the normal transaction process and was later adjusted in the total sale price.
The developer further argued that the amenities mentioned in the complaint were not part of any binding contractual commitment. According to the developer, the complainant relied on an alleged brochure that was never issued or approved by the company. The developer also stated that the rights and obligations of both parties were governed strictly by the executed agreement for sale and the registered sale deed, not by promotional materials.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Sanjay Shukla (Chairperson) and Dhananjay Devangan (Member) of the Chhattisgarh RERA. The authority examined the submissions of both parties and the documents placed on record in the proceedings dated March 9, 2026.
The case highlights recurring disputes in real estate projects involving delays in possession, deviation from approved layouts, and failure to deliver promised amenities, which remain among the most common complaints before RERA authorities across the country.
Case Reference : Mrs. Srishti Agrawal, W/o Mr. Ankush Agrawal v. M/s Dolphin Promoter & Builder, through Partner Mr. Harmit Singh Hora, S/o Gurmukh Singh Hora
