Delhi State Commission Directs WTC Noida to Refund ₹82.27 Lakh and Pay ₹9.70 Lakh as Assured Returns for Delay in Possession
Pranav B Prem
In a recent decision , the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd., along with Viridian Red and the Project Head, to refund ₹82,27,052 to a buyer for failing to deliver possession of a unit in the 'World Trade Centre' project, Greater Noida, and to also pay ₹9,70,363 as outstanding assured returns, in addition to compensation and litigation costs.
The complaint was filed by Ms. Manpreet Sharma, who had booked a unit in the commercial project in January 2014 by paying ₹2,00,000 as booking amount. A Developer-Buyer Agreement was executed on 13 August 2014, wherein she opted for a 100% down payment plan, making full payment of ₹82,27,052 by November 2014. In return, the builder promised assured returns until possession, and committed to hand over possession within four years, with a grace period of six months, i.e., by February 2019.
However, despite the lapse of the contractual period and the grace period, construction remained incomplete, and possession was not offered. In February 2020, the builder informed the complainant that possession would be delayed. In May and June 2020, citing the COVID-19 pandemic, the builder revised the terms, offering 50% of assured returns (₹37,500/month) and deferring the balance. The builder also committed that if possession was not handed over by February 2022, full assured returns (₹75,000/month) would resume.
Despite written acceptance of these revised terms, the builder failed to make regular payments. Only ₹39,023 was paid for three months in 2020, and no further payments were made. After repeated emails went unanswered, the complainant issued a legal notice in August 2022, and subsequently filed the consumer complaint seeking refund, assured returns, and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
The builder contested the maintainability of the complaint, claiming the complainant was not a “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the purchase was for a commercial purpose. They also invoked force majeure due to the pandemic, and claimed no deficiency in service.
Rejecting these objections, the State Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General Member), referred to multiple precedents, including Rohit Choudhary v. M/s Vipul Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 5858/2017] and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shantu Developers [Civil Appeal No. 12322 of 2016], holding that even purchasers of commercial property may qualify as “consumers” if the purchase is not for resale or large-scale commercial activity.
The Commission noted that no evidence was presented by the builder to show that the complainant was engaged in regular real estate trading or used the unit for a business venture. Hence, it held the complainant to be a consumer under the Act.
On the issue of limitation, the Commission held that failure to deliver possession is a continuing wrong, giving rise to a recurring cause of action. Referring to Mehnga Singh Khera v. Unitech Ltd. [I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC)], the Commission reiterated that as long as possession is not delivered, the buyer retains the right to seek redressal under the Act.
Assessing the merits of the case, the Commission relied on the landmark judgment in Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 3 RCR (Civil) 544], where the Supreme Court held that failure to deliver possession within the stipulated period constitutes deficiency in service.
The Commission observed that the agreement itself (Clause 5.6) required the developer to offer possession within four years from August 2014, i.e., by August 2018, extendable up to February 2019. Since construction remained incomplete and no occupation certificate was produced, the builder was found to be in breach. Moreover, the claim of force majeure was dismissed because the possession was due before the onset of the pandemic, and the revised payment plan was voluntarily undertaken and later breached.
The Commission specifically noted: “The Opposite Parties have admitted that the construction of the said unit is still incomplete… No documentary proof of extent of construction or status of occupation certificate has been placed on record.”
It further held that the suspension of assured returns was unjustified, especially when the builder continued to pay some returns during the COVID-19 period, thereby acknowledging the obligation.
Accordingly, the Commission found the builder guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and passed the following directions:
Refund ₹82,27,052 with 6% interest per annum from the date of each payment till March 26, 2025, provided payment is made by May 26, 2025.
If the amount is not refunded by that date, the interest rate will rise to 9% per annum until actual realization.
Pay ₹9,70,363 towards outstanding assured returns from March 2020 to November 2022, as per revised plan.
Compensation of ₹3,00,000 for mental agony and harassment.
Litigation cost of ₹50,000.'
Appearance
For the Complainant: Mr. Divjot Singh Bhatia & Mr. Shreesh Chadha, Advocates
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
Cause Title: Ms. Manpreet Sharma V. WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors.
Case No: Complaint Case No. 191/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal [President], Hon’ble Mr. J.P. Agrawal [Member (General)]
[Read/Download order]
