Significant Consumer Court Ruling in Delhi
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has delivered a significant judgment, mandating a refund and compensation to two homebuyers for an extraordinary delay in the handover of flats. The cooperative housing society based in Ghaziabad, identified as Sanchar Nest Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, is required to repay ₹79.43 lakh with applicable interest, alongside ₹5 lakh for mental distress and legal expenses. This verdict arises from a case involving a 15-year delay in flat possession, marking a milestone in consumer rights litigation. The case reference is Pramod Kumar & Anr v. Sanchar Nest Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.
Commission Acknowledges Deficiency in Service
A bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) determined that the housing society exhibited a clear deficiency in service. The homebuyers had invested significantly, including through home loans, yet received neither possession of the flats nor a refund. The judgment stated, “The Opposite Party was deficient in rendering services to the Complainants by failing to hand over possession of the flats within a reasonable period and kept the amounts deposited by the Complainants for almost sixteen years from the date of agreements.”
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from flats booked in 2010 in a proposed Noida project, slated for possession by 2012. Due to alleged land disputes, the project was relocated to Ghaziabad, incurring revised costs and requiring new agreements in 2013. Despite these changes, construction stagnated, and the society continued to issue demands for additional payments under various pretexts.
Commission’s Observations
The Commission noted, “The Opposite Party continued extending the date of completion and simultaneously raised additional demands under different heads, thereby increasing the financial burden upon the Complainants. It is also evident that while the Complainants duly fulfilled their obligations by making payments as demanded and by availing loan facilities, the Opposite Party failed to fulfil its obligation of delivering possession of the flats within a reasonable period of 42 to 48 months from the date of the Agreements despite receipt of the aforesaid substantial amount.”
Legal Implications and Orders
The Commission rejected the society’s defenses, which included land disputes, increased costs, environmental restrictions, and pandemic-related delays, citing a lack of evidence. It emphasized that a cooperative housing society acts as a service provider when it constructs on behalf of buyers, enabling homebuyers to seek recourse in consumer forums despite alternate remedies under real estate laws. The failure to deliver possession was deemed a continuing cause of action.
More Read
The order mandates the society to refund ₹39,08,865 to one buyer and ₹40,34,234 to another, totaling ₹79,43,099. This refund will accrue interest at 8.25% annually from the payment dates until June 8, 2026, with an increase to 11.25% if not settled by August 8, 2026. Additionally, ₹2 lakh each was awarded for mental agony and ₹50,000 each for litigation costs, culminating in a ₹5 lakh compensation.
Advocate Sarvesh Roy represented the complainants, while Advocate Sumit Kumar appeared for the housing society.
