Delhi Consumer Commission Directs TDI Infracorp to Refund ₹45 Lakh with Interest for Delay in Flat Possession, Terms It Deficiency in Service
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi, comprising President Poonam Chaudhry and Members Bariq Ahmad and Shekhar Chandra, has held TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. liable for deficiency in service on account of inordinate delay in handing over possession of a flat booked by the complainant in its residential project in Sonipat, Haryana. The Commission directed the builder to refund the entire paid amount of ₹45,09,296 with 9% interest per annum, terming the prolonged delay unjustified and in violation of consumer rights.
The complainant, Mrs. Sunita Goel, had booked unit No. WF-149/GF in the project titled “Waterside Floors in Lake Grove City” at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana, and made an advance payment of ₹5 lakhs on 08.04.2013. An allotment letter was issued by TDI on 15.10.2013, and a builder-buyer agreement was executed thereafter. Under a “subvention scheme,” the complainant availed a loan of ₹25.56 lakhs from India Infoline Housing Finance Limited (IFL), with the builder committing to pay the interest until the registration of the flat.
Over time, the complainant made payments amounting to ₹45,09,296 through various instalments between 2013 and 2016. However, the builder defaulted on its commitment to pay interest on the loan, forcing the complainant to bear monthly interest payments of ₹20,000. Despite the passage of several years and full payment, possession of the unit was not handed over. The complainant further alleged that the builder unilaterally increased the flat’s area to 1520 sq. ft. and demanded an additional amount, without proper justification.
Asserting that the builder had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and that she could not be made to wait indefinitely, the complainant served a legal notice dated 13.03.2024 seeking refund of the entire amount. Upon receiving no response, she filed the complaint before the Consumer Commission seeking refund, interest, and compensation.
In its defense, TDI contended that possession had already been offered vide letter dated 05.07.2023, and that over 380 customers in the same project had taken possession. It cited delays caused by force majeure conditions such as Supreme Court and NGT orders regarding pollution, COVID-19 lockdowns, and prolonged farmer protests that obstructed access to the construction site near Singhu Border. TDI also pointed out that the project was funded and monitored by SWAMIH Funds (SBI Cap) under a government revival scheme.
Additionally, the builder relied on Clause 28 of the builder-buyer agreement, stating that in case of delay, the buyer was entitled only to compensation at ₹5 per sq. ft. per month and not a refund. It also contested the complainant's locus as a consumer, claiming she was an investor, and argued that complicated contractual issues made the matter more suitable for a civil suit.
The Commission, however, rejected these defenses. It observed that although TDI cited external factors, no supporting documents or evidence were filed to substantiate its claims of force majeure. The bench further noted that possession had not been delivered for over a decade since the agreement, even though the construction was contractually to be completed within 30 months of the agreement executed on 06.05.2014, i.e., by November 2016.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) and Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D’Lima & Ors. (2018), the Commission emphasized that delay in possession amounts to both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and that a consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. The bench also rejected TDI’s contention that the complainant was not a consumer, noting that no evidence was submitted to prove she purchased the property for commercial purposes.
The Commission concluded: “Admittedly, there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the flat in question which amounts to deficiency in service... As the services of OP were deficient, the complainant was justified in claiming refund of the amount deposited by him with compensation.”
Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed TDI Infracorp to:
Refund ₹45,09,296 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit until realization;
In case of delay beyond four weeks from receipt of the order, pay interest at 12% per annum for the delayed period;
Pay ₹50,000 as litigation costs to the complainant.
Cause Title: Sunita Goel V. TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd.
Case No: CC/305/2024
Coram: Ms. Poonam Chaudhry [President], Sh. Bariq Ahmad [Member], Sh. Shekhar Chandra [Member]
[Read/Download order]
