Providing relief to a Chandigarh resident, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mohali has ordered a real estate developer to hand over possession of his residential plot in New Chandigarh and pay 9% annual interest on ₹25.55 lakh from April 1, 2020, until actual delivery, along with ₹2.5 lakh as compensation and litigation costs.
The Commission order stems from a complaint filed by Nitin, a government doctor, against Sanjha Vihar Builders and Colonies Welfare Association and M/s Innovative Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., along with its directors. The dispute concerns measuring 300 square yards in the PCL Gateway West Township project located in Sectors 17 and 18, New Chandigarh.
According to the record, the total sale consideration of ₹25.55 lakh had already been received by the developer. An allotment letter issued in April 2019 fixed March 31, 2020, as the committed date for possession. The complainant alleged that possession was not delivered within the stipulated period and that development works and approvals remained pending.
The developer contested the complaint, citing force majeure events including the Covid pandemic and delays in statutory approvals. It also questioned the maintainability of the complaint.
The developer also argued that the complainant had purchased the plot in 2019 through a secondary transfer from the original allottee and had full knowledge of the project status. It claimed that the plot was purchased for investment and resale, amounting to a commercial purpose, and therefore, the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. It denied any deficiency in service, stating that about 85% of the development work had been completed and that funds received were properly utilised.
{{/usCountry}}The developer also argued that the complainant had purchased the plot in 2019 through a secondary transfer from the original allottee and had full knowledge of the project status. It claimed that the plot was purchased for investment and resale, amounting to a commercial purpose, and therefore, the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. It denied any deficiency in service, stating that about 85% of the development work had been completed and that funds received were properly utilised.
{{/usCountry}}The Commission held that the delay predated the pandemic period and that non-delivery of possession constituted a continuing cause of action. It rejected the defence that the complainant was not a consumer and found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The order was passed by a bench comprising president SK Aggarwal and members Paramjeet Kaur and Lt Col Jasbir Singh Bath. In its order, the court directed the opposite parties to execute the sale deed, hand over possession in all respects along with completion and occupation certificates within two months. The commission also directed the opposite parties to pay interest at 9% per annum from April 1, 2020, until actual possession, and pay ₹2.5 lakh as compensation and litigation expenses. All opposite parties were held jointly and severally liable.
Ludhiana residents get ₹1L relief
In another case, the Commission granted relief to Ludhiana residents Praminder Singh and Aneet Kaur in a complaint filed against Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The complainants had booked a residential plot in the “Palm Springs” project at New Chandigarh and paid substantial amounts over the years. Although the developer issued a possession letter, it failed to execute and register the sale deed or hand over actual physical possession of the plot.
The Commission observed that merely offering possession on paper did not amount to real and effective delivery. It held the builder guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for delaying the conveyance deed and raising maintenance charges without handing over possession. The Commission directed the company to execute and register the sale deed within two months, deliver actual possession, refrain from charging maintenance for the disputed period, and pay ₹1 lakh as compensation and litigation expenses.