Delhi District Commission Holds TDI Infracorp Liable For Delayed Possession Of Flat

Brief facts:

The complainant booked a unit in the housing society of the TDI Infracorp Limited (“builder”) "Waterside Floors In Lake Grove City” in Haryana. An advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was paid by the complainant to the builder and an allotment letter dated 15.10.2013 was issued. A builder-buyer agreement was also entered into by the Complainant with the builder. The complainant opted for “sub vention scheme” wherein a loan amounting to Rs. 25,56,278 was availed by the complainant from India Infoline Housing Finance Limited (IFL) and the builder undertook to pay the interests towards the loan on behalf of the complainant until registry of the unit is done.

Payments amounting to Rs.45,09,296/- were made by the complainant. However, the builder failed to pay the interest amounts due to which the complainants had to pay Rs.20,000 as interest costs per month. Further, according to clause 10 (a) of the agreement, the construction was to be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of the project i.e around May 2011. However, there was a prolonged delay in construction of the project. The complainant stated that there was a failure on the part of the builder to complete the construction of the housing project and deliver the possession of the flat on time. Moreover, the builder on his own account expanded the size of the flat to 1520 Sq. Ft and subsequently demanded an increased amount. Thus, a legal notice dated 13.03.2024 was sent by the complainant to the builder demanding a refund of Rs. 45,09,296/-. On not receiving any satisfactory response from the builder, the complainant filed a complaint before the district consumer commission praying for appropriate compensation.

Submissions of the complainant:

The complainant submitted that the builder be made liable to refund the consideration amount paid towards the flat along with costs for mental agony, harassment and litigation. It was further submitted that the reasons given by the builder for prolonged delay in construction of the project cannot be justified.

Submissions of builder:

The builder submitted that the complainant was informed well in advance about rescheduling of the construction project due to global recession. It was submitted that the project has already been completed and possession has been offered to the complainant. It was submitted that the delay in construction activities was on account of certain events which were beyond the control of the buyer such as orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of pollution, absence of labour due to Covid-19, blockage of roads due to farmer protests, etc. It was further submitted that the project was funded by Swamih Funds (SBI Cap) under the package given by the government to revive the Real Estate Sector in lockdown and it was also monitoring the progress of the project.

It was the specific contention of the builder that as per Clause 28 of the Builder Buyer Agreement, in case of delayed possession, the builder is liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month and therefore there is no case for refund.

Observations by the commission:

The bench observed that no documents were produced on record by the builder to support their submission that the delay was on account of events beyond its control. It was observed that there was inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the flat which amounts to 'deficiency in service'.

The bench relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K Gupta [1994(1) SCC 243] to hold that when possession is not handed over within the stipulated period, the same also amounts to 'unfair trade practice'. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. Vs. Trevor D':Lima and Ors.[2018 (5) SCC 442] to further hold that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat and he is entitled to seek a refund along with compensation.

Thus, the builder was held liable and the following reliefs were granted to the complainant:

1. Builder was directed to refund Rs. 45,09,296/- along with interest @9% per annum

2. Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs were awarded to the complainant

Hence, the complaint was allowed by the district commission.

Case Title: Sunita Goel vs TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd.

Case No.: CC/305/2024

Date of Judgment: 21.04.2025

Click here to download order/judgment