The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a cooperative housing society to refund over ₹79.43 lakh to two homebuyers, along with interest linked to their home loan rate, holding that the society was deficient in service for failing to hand over possession of flats even after nearly 15 years from the date of the agreement. The Commission also awarded ₹4 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs.
The complainants had enrolled as members of the housing society in 2010 and initially booked 3BHK flats in a Noida project. Owing to disputes relating to the original project land, they were persuaded to shift to another project in Wave City, Ghaziabad, and paid approximately ₹79.43 lakh, including amounts raised through home loans. Despite repeated assurances and execution of agreements in 2013, possession was never delivered, while the society allegedly continued raising additional demands and extending the completion timeline.
Also Read DHARA, DAFA AUR DRAMA: India Changed Its Criminal Laws, But Cinema Still Speaks IPC
Opposing the complaint, the society argued that the complainants were not ‘consumers’ under the Consumer Protection Act, that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of authorities under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), and that the complaint was barred by limitation. It also attributed the delay to land disputes, increased construction costs, environmental restrictions, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rejecting these objections, the Commission held that a cooperative housing society undertaking construction and allotment of flats renders a service for consideration and is amenable to consumer jurisdiction. It further observed that failure to deliver possession constitutes a recurring cause of action, making the complaint maintainable despite the passage of time, and reiterated that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, those available under RERA.
On merits, the Commission found that the society had failed to produce any document stipulating a definite timeline for possession and had not substantiated its reliance on force majeure events. It noted that the flats remained undelivered for several years even before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and held that the prolonged delay amounted to clear deficiency in service. Accordingly, it directed refund of the deposited amount with interest at the home loan rate up to August 8, 2026, failing which the amount would carry 11.25% annual interest, besides compensation and costs.
