Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds WTC Chandigarh Liable For Delay In Possession; Homebuyers Cannot Be Made To Wait Indefinitely

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has held M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete construction of the unit and hand over possession within the stipulated deadline. The Commission observed that a homebuyer cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession and that such delay defeats the very purpose of the agreement. Brief FactsThe complainants, Ramanjit Sidhu and Mannat Chandail, entered into an Agreement with M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party) on 19-05-2018 for the purchase of a 1,000 sq. ft. commercial unit in the project “WTC Chandigarh – Retail Space”, Mohali, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 86,80,000/-. The complainants paid a total amount of Rs. 69,30,631/-, amounting to 80% of the total consideration between February 2018 and January 2024. As per Clause 4.4 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party was required to deliver possession of the unit by 18-11-2022, i.e., within 48 months plus a grace period of six months. However, the Opposite Party failed to complete the construction or hand over possession within the stipulated time and also failed to produce any completion certificate or occupancy certificate. Despite multiple requests made by the complainants seeking possession, the Opposite Party remained unresponsive.Prior to filing the present complaint, the complainants had pursued remedies before the RERA. Aggrieved by the clear deficiency in service on the part of the developer due to the inordinate delay in handing over possession, the complainants approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking refund of the amount deposited along with interest.Arguments of the Opposite PartiesM/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. argued that the unit was purchased for commercial purpose rather than for earning a livelihood. It was further argued that the complaint was not maintainable, as a separate case had already been instituted by an allottees' welfare association before RERA seeking project completion. The counsel denied any cause of action for the present complaint. The Opposite Parties No. 5 to 7 were served; however, they did not appear and, as such, were proceeded against ex parte. Observations & DecisionThe State Commission, while rejecting the developer's contentions, held that the Opposite Party was deficient in service for failing to complete construction and hand over posses-sion of the unit by the stipulated deadline of 18.11.2022, despite having received approxi-mately 80% of the total sale consideration. The Commission also rejected the contention that the unit had been purchased for a commercial purpose, observing that the complain-ants had purchased the unit to earn their livelihood and that the developer failed to produce any evidence to show that the complainants were property investors. Addressing the developer's objection regarding the pendency of proceedings before RE-RA, the Commission observed that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are supplementary in nature and not in derogation of other laws. The Commission further noted that the delay in handing over possession was substantial and wholly unexplained, as the developer failed to produce any completion certificate, oc-cupancy certificate, or evidence of force majeure circumstances preventing timely comple-tion. It also observed that the conduct of the developer in retaining the complainants' mon-ey for years without delivering the promised unit reflected a clear breach of contractual obligations. Drawing an adverse inference from the failure of several Opposite Parties to contest the proceedings, the Commission emphasised that a buyer cannot be compelled to wait indefi-nitely for possession and that non-delivery of the unit within the promised timeline amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the developer to: • Refund ₹69,30,631 with interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of deposit • Pay ₹75,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment • Pay ₹35,000 towards litigation costs Case Title: Ramanjit Sidhu & Anr. v. M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/74/2025 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds WTC Chandigarh Liable For Delay In Possession; Homebuyers Cannot Be Made To Wait Indefinitely

Muhammed Razik

Tags