Unreasonable Delay In Handing Over Possession Of Property To Buyers: NCDRC Directs Builder To Refund Entire Amount Along With Interest

Brief Facts

Monika Bansal (Complainant) filed the complaint stating that she booked a unit in a project called "Windmills of Your Mind" by Opposite Party Builder i.e. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. in Bangalore. Intending to settle there after retirement, Monika paid a booking amount of Rs. 1 crore in February 2015 and later paid a total of Rs. 6,86,19,422/- (around 90% of the total sale consideration). However, despite promises, the builder failed to provide possession of the unit by the agreed date of July 30, 2016.

As per the complaint, the builder also reduced the area of the unit from what was initially promised without informing the complainants, yet still charged the same amount. Despite several assurances and deadlines given by the builder, possession of the unit was not provided. Having no other recourse, Monika moved the National Consumer Commission alleging deficient service and seeking a refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation.

Arguments of the Builder (Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd.)

The builder argued that according to the agreements signed, any disputes should have been first taken up by a Real Estate Association (CREDAI) in Bangalore and then through arbitration, making the complaint invalid. They claimed that they had already obtained the Occupancy Certificate well in time, indicating that the unit was ready for occupation, so there was no need for a refund.

Further, they blamed delays on late payments and customization requests by the complainants, as well as shortages of materials and labor. The builder also mentioned seeking consent for time extensions from the complainants, implying they were cooperative in the process. As per them, the complainants were only entitled to the damages specified in the agreement and not a full refund.

Observations by the Commission

The commission noted that while the builder obtained the Occupancy Certificate in January 2018, they only offered possession of the unit to the complainants in July 2020. The commission observed that the date of receiving the Occupancy Certificate by the builder holds no significance for the buyer if the offer of possession is not made after receiving such certificate.

Consequently, the commission found that there was an unreasonable delay of more than 3 years in offering possession of the unit, which constituted deficient service on the part of the builder. Therefore, the complainants were entitled to a refund of the entire amount they had deposited, without any obligation to accept the belatedly offered possession of the unit.

While deciding the consumer complaint, the National Commission drew upon precedents from the Supreme Court, such as Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438. These cases underscore the principle that buyers cannot be subjected to indefinite delays in obtaining possession of their properties.

As a result, the commission directed the Builder (Opposite Party) to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants, along with 9% interest per annum, within two months from the date of the judgment.

Case Title: Monika Bansal & Ors. v/s Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Counsel for the Complainants: Mr. Aditya Parolia, Ms. Priya & Ms. Ishita Singh, Advocates

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Ms. Mansvini Jain, Advocate