Chandigarh: Bringing major relief to a homebuyer couple left waiting despite paying nearly 95% of their flat’s cost, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, has directed a real estate firm and its two directors to refund ₹62.7 lakh with 12% annual interest from the respective dates of deposit.The commission, comprising presiding member Padma Pandey and member Rajesh K Arya, found the firm guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices regarding an apartment in Zirakpur. The builder and its directors were also ordered to pay ₹75,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹35,000 in litigation costs within 30 days.Complainants Saurabh Verma and his wife Puja Rani booked a 1,590-square-foot flat for ₹66.5 lakh in October 2022, with an original possession deadline of Oct 31, 2023. Despite receiving ₹62.7 lakh—including a ₹40.1 lakh home loan—the developer failed to hand over the property on time.The deadline was extended three times across Sept 2023, Aug 2024, and Aug 2025, pushing the delivery target to November 2024, July 2025, and finally Dec 31, 2025. While the builder initially paid ₹30,000 per month as delayed-possession compensation for a year, the payments stopped thereafter. The commission ruled that these monthly payments received between Nov 2023 and Nov 2024 will be adjusted against the final refund.The buyers alleged the firm demanded additional funds for finishing work despite slow construction, threatening contract cancellation and 24% interest for non-payment. When the firm issued a possession letter on Sept 27, 2025, the buyers refused it, citing incomplete construction and missing statutory approvals. An RTI response dated Jan 2, 2026, confirmed the lack of a fire safety certificate.The commission observed that offering a possession letter without required statutory clearances does not make a unit fit for occupation. It noted that the firm’s defense was struck off on April 16, 2026, after it failed to file a written reply within the 45-day window.Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the commission affirmed that buyers cannot be forced to wait indefinitely or take possession of an incomplete unit.“The obligation of a builder is not merely to construct a structure or issue a letter describing possession as offered; it is to deliver the contracted residential unit within the stipulated period, in a habitable condition and in conformity with the applicable statutory requirements,” the commission observed.It held that repeated delays, halting compensation, and demanding extra funds constituted material service deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adding: “The fact that the complainants have paid approximately 95% of the total sale consideration makes their predicament all the more serious, as a substantial part of their financial resources stands committed to a unit whose lawful and habitable possession has not been established.”
