E-Paper
Mohali builder directed to pay 9% over delayed, uncertified possession
The commission, headed by president SK Aggarwal, with member Paramjeet Kaur, also directed the builder to provide all promised amenities, rectify construction defects and restore the parking space originally allotted to the complainant
Prefer HTon Google
The district consumer disputes redressal commission directed Janta Land Promoters to pay 9% annual interest on ₹42 lakh deposited by a homebuyer from July 30, 2018, until it obtains the final occupation and completion certificates for its Galaxy Heights project in Sector 66-A.
The commission, headed by president SK Aggarwal, with member Paramjeet Kaur, also directed the builder to provide all promised amenities, rectify construction defects and restore the parking space originally allotted to the complainant. It further ordered the builder to pay ₹75,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
In its October 5 order, the commission partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by Kuldeep Singh, who had purchased a 1,050 square-foot apartment in Tower B of Galaxy Heights through a transfer from the original allottee in June 2021.
According to the original allotment letter dated August 1, 2015, construction was to be completed within 36 months, making July 30, 2018, the intended possession deadline. However, the complainant received physical possession only on March 10, 2023.
Singh alleged that the apartment had construction defects and that several facilities promised in the project brochure had not been provided. He also challenged the collection of maintenance charges despite the builder not having obtained the required occupation and completion certificates.
The commission noted that the builder had failed to produce the completion certificate. It relied on information dated March 23, 2026, stating that the application for a partial completion certificate for Tower B was still under consideration and the certificate had not been issued.
Holding that merely handing over the apartment did not amount to valid possession in the absence of the required certificates, the commission observed that the builder had failed to establish that the promised facilities were available when possession was handed over.
Citing national commission judgments
The commission relied on the national consumer disputes redressal commission’s judgment in Shri Rajeev Nohwar and Anr versus M/s Sahajanand HI TECH Construction (May 6, 2016), while holding that possession offered without the requisite occupation and completion certificates could not be treated as valid and legal possession.
It also referred to Yash Pal Marwaha versus Pushpa Builders and Anr (September 5, 2005), observing that facilities promised in a project brochure formed part of the builder’s commitments and could not be disregarded merely because possession had been offered or a sale deed executed.
On maintenance charges, the commission cited the national commission’s rulings in Kamal Kishore and Anr versus M/s Supertech Limited (March 14, 2017) and Madhusudhan Reddy R and Ors versus VDB Whitefield Development Private Limited & Ors (January 25, 2022). These judgments were cited in support of the principle that maintenance charges should not be levied before obtaining the occupation certificate when the project remains incomplete and promised services are not fully available. It also referred to Cdr Rajgopalan and Ors versus Vatika Limited (2023).
On the parking dispute, the commission noted that photographs submitted by the complainant showed that his allotted parking space was narrower than another parking space in the project. The builder failed to produce a sanctioned parking plan to establish that the reduced size complied with the approved layout.
In its operative directions, the commission ordered the builder to “provide all the basic amenities and facilities as promised in the brochure and the agreements including rectification/removal of defects and also to obtain occupation and completion certificates from the competent Authorities, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order.”
It further directed the company to “pay to the complainant interest 9% on the amount of ₹42,13,678/- which was paid towards sale consideration of the unit from the intended date of possession that is with effect from 30-07-2018 (36 months from the date of allotment letter dated 01-08-2015) till obtaining the final occupation and completion certificate for the project wherein the unit of the complainant is situated.”
The commission also ordered the builder to “provide the parking space which was originally allotted to the complainant” and “pay to the complainant compensation of ₹75,000/- for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.”
The commission rejected the builder’s objection that Singh was not a consumer, noting that no evidence had been produced to establish that he was engaged in buying and selling properties for commercial purposes. It also held that the delivery of possession and execution of the sale deed did not make the possession valid in the absence of the required certificates.
