Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders WTC Developers To Refund ₹18.90 Lakh For Failure To Deliver Possession
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has held WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. and WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial unit within the stipulated time despite...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has held WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. and WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial unit within the stipulated time despite receiving substantial payment from the complainants. The Commission has directed the builders to refund ₹18,90,000 (the deposited amount) with 9% interest per annum from the dates of deposit till realization, and has further awarded ₹30,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
Facts and Background of the Case
The complainants, Shree Bhagwan Jindal and Mrs. Madhu Jindal, entered into an Agreement dated 12/17.09.2020 with the Opposite Parties (WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. and WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd.) for the purchase of Commercial Unit No. 1229, located on the 12th Floor of WTC Tower A at Plot No. 2, Aero City, GMADA, Mohali. The unit was purchased for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment.
As per the Agreement, the total sale price was ₹37,53,161, out of which the complainants paid ₹18,90,000 on 18.09.2020 by cheque, and the remaining amount was to be paid within 18 months of application submission or possession, whichever was later. The complainants produced the cheque and bank statement to show successful payment.
According to the Agreement, the project completion and possession date was 31.12.2022. However, despite the lapse of the stipulated period, the Opposite Parties failed to complete the project or offer possession of the unit. The towers were still under construction, as evidenced by photographs placed on record. The complainants repeatedly emailed the company seeking a refund, but the Opposite Parties did not return their money.
Aggrieved by this, the complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking refund of the deposited amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Contentions of the Complainant
The complainants asserted that the Opposite Parties had failed to honour their contractual commitments, particularly the obligation to complete the project and deliver possession within the agreed timeline. They contended that despite receiving substantial payment from them, the developers neither communicated any justified reason for the delay nor responded to repeated requests for refund.
They further argued that the Opposite Parties' conduct—such as prolonged silence, lack of transparency about construction progress, and failure to address their grievances—amounted to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
The Opposite Parties argued that the completion timeline mentioned in the Agreement was tied to the date of completion registered with RERA, which had been extended. They stated that the developer had already applied to RERA for extension of the completion date first to 30.06.2022, and later further to 30.06.2024, which was still under consideration. Hence, according to them, the complaint was premature.
They also argued that delay occurred due to Force Majeure conditions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. They stated that due to nationwide lockdowns, labour shortages, and moratorium-related extensions announced by the Ministry of Finance, the construction was adversely affected. They maintained that construction was now progressing and that they intended to offer possession soon. Denying all allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Observation and decision of the Commission
The Commission observed that the Opposite Parties received ₹18,90,000 from the complainants but failed to complete the construction or deliver possession by the promised date of 31.12.2022. The plea of COVID-19–related delay and RERA extensions was rejected because no documentary evidence was produced to show that any valid extension had been granted. Photographs on record confirmed that the project was still incomplete.
The Commission relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan which hold that unreasonable delay in handing over possession amounts to deficiency in service and entitles the buyer to seek refund. Applying these principles, the Commission held that the developer's conduct constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission directed the Opposite Parties to:
- Refund ₹18,90,000 with interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of deposit till realization.
- Pay ₹30,000 as compensation, covering harassment and litigation costs.
- Comply within 45 days.
Case Title: Shree Bhagwan Jindal & Anr. vs. WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/521/2023