Delhi Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Emaar India After Buyers Accept Possession And Compensation

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainants, Ms. Debleena Paul and Mr. Pratik Chugh, became subsequent purchasers of a residential unit originally allotted to one Ms. Urmila in the project “Palm Terraces Select” located at Sector-66, Gurgaon, Haryana. The original allottee had executed a Buyer's Agreement on 20.12.2010 with Emaar India Limited for a total price of ₹1,69,72,320. On 25.08.2012, the complainants purchased the unit from the original allottee through an Agreement to Sell, after which the developer issued a Nomination Letter dated 18.09.2012, transferring the allotment and all previously issued payment receipts in their favour.

As per Clause 14 of the original Buyer's Agreement, possession was to be delivered within 36 months plus a grace period of 3 months from the date of commencement of construction. However, the Opposite Party failed to complete construction within the contractual period. The complainants state that they made all payments as demanded and repeatedly sought updates on construction, but the developer did not provide satisfactory responses.

The Opposite Party eventually issued an Offer of Possession on 16.09.2019, almost four years beyond the promised timeline. The complainants took possession of the unit and later raised grievance that the developer did not provide adequate compensation for the delay. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, they approached the Delhi State Consumer Commission seeking delay compensation, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the Complainants:

The complainants contend that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver possession within the contractually stipulated period and by not paying adequate delay compensation despite an inordinate delay of nearly four years. They argue that they made all payments in good faith and repeatedly sought information regarding the status of construction, yet the developer remained non-responsive and negligent. They further assert that the compensation later offered by the Opposite Party was insufficient and not in accordance with law, which prompted them to approach the Commission seeking proper delay compensation, damages for mental agony, and litigation costs. The complainants maintain that the delay severely disrupted their financial planning and constituted unfair trade practice on the part of the developer.

Contentions of the Opposite Party:

The Opposite Party submits that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants had already taken possession of the unit and had accepted delay compensation under the terms of the Buyer's Agreement without raising any objection at that time. The developer argues that the complainants are barred from claiming further compensation, as they had executed an Indemnity-cum-Undertaking upon transfer of allotment in 2012, agreeing not to dispute the compensation clause or claim benefits under any scheme. It is further contended that the complainants do not fall within the definition of “consumer,” as the property was allegedly purchased for commercial gain. The Opposite Party also argues that the Agreement itself contemplated the possibility of delay and prescribed ₹7.50 per sq. ft. per month as the agreed rate of compensation, which the complainants have already received. Therefore, according to the Opposite Party, no cause of action survives, and the complaint deserves dismissal.

Observation and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the complainants had already taken possession of the unit on 21.11.2019 and the Conveyance Deed was executed on 17.12.2019. It noted that they had also received delay compensation as per the Buyer's Agreement and had raised no objection at the time of accepting it. Since the complainants accepted possession and compensation in full satisfaction of the contractual terms, the Commission held that no cause of action survived. The complaint was found to be filed after the settlement of all obligations, and therefore not maintainable.

The Commission held that all contractual responsibilities of the Opposite Party stood fulfilled and thus dismissed the complaint, concluding that no further claim could be entertained. All pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title: MS. DEBLEENA PAUL AND ANR. VS EMAAR INDIA LIMITED

Case No.: C/134/2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order