Case Note & Summary
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposed of two consumer complaints filed by complainants against Opp. Parties. The Complainants had booked an apartment in 2008 with possession promised by December 2011, but the Builder delivered physical possession only in October 2015 without obtaining the mandatory Occupation Certificate. The Commission found deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and violation of statutory requirements. The Builder was directed to obtain Occupation Certificate within three months, pay interest at 9% per annum on amounts paid for the delayed period, refund unauthorized parking charges of Rs. 1,75,000 with 9% interest, refund area enhancement charges of Rs. 3,82,031, and pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony. The complaints were allowed with these directions.
Headnote
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) -- Heard complaints filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) -- The Complainants had booked an apartment in 'Hamilton Heights' project in Faridabad -- The Builder was to deliver possession by December 2011 but handed over physical possession only in October 2015 -- The Builder failed to obtain Occupation Certificate from Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP) -- The Commission held that delay in possession and failure to obtain statutory permissions constituted deficiency in service -- Directed the Builder to obtain Occupation Certificate within three months -- Awarded compensation for delayed possession at 9% interest per annum from promised date to actual possession date -- Ordered refund of unauthorized parking charges and area enhancement charges -- The Builder was also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the builder's failure to deliver possession within agreed timeframe and obtain Occupation Certificate constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Commission allowed the complaints -- Directed the Builder to obtain Occupation Certificate within three months -- Awarded interest at 9% per annum on amounts paid from promised possession date (December 2011) to actual possession date (October 2015) -- Ordered refund of Rs. 1,75,000 parking charges with 9% interest from receipt date -- Ordered refund of Rs. 3,82,031 area enhancement charges -- Directed payment of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment -- All reliefs granted as prayed for except interest rate reduced from 12% to 9%
2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 59
Consumer Case No. 1852 of 2017, Consumer Case No. 1853 of 2017
HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),MEMBER
Mr. Aditya Parolia, Ms. Ishita Singh, Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Ms. Anvita Priyadarshi, Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary, Mr. Prins Kumar, Mr. Yashish Samkria
Lalita Tanwar, Yogendra Singh Tanwar
Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd., Espire Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service by builder in real estate project
Remedy Sought
Complainants seeking legal possession with Occupation Certificate, compensation for delayed possession, refund of unauthorized charges, and damages
Filing Reason
Builder failed to deliver possession within agreed timeframe and obtain mandatory Occupation Certificate
Previous Decisions
No previous decisions mentioned in the judgment
Issues
Whether the Builder's delay in delivering possession constituted deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Whether failure to obtain Occupation Certificate rendered possession illegal and constituted unfair trade practice
Whether the Builder could charge additional amounts for area enhancement and parking without consent
Submissions/Arguments
Complainants argued that delay of nearly four years in possession caused financial loss and mental agony
Complainants contended that possession without Occupation Certificate was illegal under Town and Country Planning regulations
Builder argued that possession was delivered and Complainants were occupying the apartment
Builder contended that charges for area enhancement and parking were justified
Ratio Decidendi
Delay in delivering possession of booked apartment constitutes deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -- Possession without Occupation Certificate is not legal possession and violates statutory requirements -- Builders cannot unilaterally increase area or charge for parking without consent -- Consumers entitled to compensation for mental agony and financial loss due to builder's defaults
Judgment Excerpts
This complaint filed under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleges deficiency in service by the Opposite Party in delay in handing over possession
The Opposite Party failed to fulfil this obligation and delivered physical possession only in October 2015, after an inordinate delay of nearly four years
The Complainants have alleged that legal possession has yet to be handed over, as the Opposite Party failed to obtain the requisite Occupation Certificate
The delay on part of the Opposite Party has caused significant financial loss, mental agony, and harassment to them
Procedural History
Complaints filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -- Notice issued to Opposite Party -- Opposite Party filed written statement -- Complainants filed rejoinder -- Parties filed evidence by way of affidavit -- Arguments heard -- Common order passed for both cases
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
.png)
