Pranav B Prem

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Capital Heights Private Limited liable for deficiency in service due to its failure to hand over possession of a residential unit within the stipulated period and for issuing misleading assurances to the buyers. The bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Member (Judicial) Pinki ruled in favour of the complainants and ordered a full refund with interest, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

Also Read: Haryana RERA Declares 3-Year Period as Reasonable Limitation, Dismisses Delayed Complaint Against Emaar

Background

The complainants had booked a unit in the Gurugram-based project of Capital Heights Private Limited on 28 August 2014 by paying a booking amount of ₹10 lakhs. An allotment letter was issued on 15 September 2014, followed by the execution of a Flat Buyer Agreement on 30 October 2014. Originally, the builder committed to handing over possession within 30 months, with a grace period of 360 days. However, the builder subsequently executed an addendum dated 10 December 2014, revising the possession timeline to 42 months with a 180-day grace period.

According to the complainants, they had already paid ₹48.24 lakhs by the time of the amendment and could not object to the revised timeline. The builder informed them that the possession would be offered by 28 August 2018. Over the years, the complainants made several communications, yet the possession was never handed over. By the time the complaint was filed, they had paid a total of ₹1,02,99,704, but the unit was not delivered even after a lapse of seven years.

Builder’s Defence

The builder contended that the dispute was contractual in nature and should be adjudicated by a civil court, not the Consumer Commission. It also claimed that it had already completed the construction, obtained the occupancy certificate (on 26 October 2021), and begun offering possession. The delay, it argued, was due to force majeure events such as regulatory bans on construction activities, orders by the NGT, the Supreme Court’s ban on demolition and construction, demonetization, and the COVID-19 pandemic. It further alleged that the complainants had not paid the full sale consideration of ₹1,47,99,984 and were suppressing material facts.

Commission’s Findings

Rejecting the jurisdictional objection, the Commission referred to Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Narne Construction P. Ltd. v. Union of India, affirming that such matters fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. It held that when a builder fails to deliver the promised services within the agreed timeline, it amounts to a deficiency in service.

The Commission found no merit in the builder’s argument regarding force majeure, citing lack of sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the cited bans and events genuinely delayed possession. Referring to Sachin Goel v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd [Consumer Case no. 1624 of 2018]. and Narinder Sachdeva v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd [Consumer Case No. 235 Of 2018], it reiterated that bans on groundwater, sand mining, and pollution-related construction halts are foreseeable risks that cannot absolve a builder from contractual obligations.

Clause 6(a) of the Addendum to the Flat Buyer Agreement mandated delivery within 42 months from the commencement of construction (confirmed to have started in September 2014). Therefore, the possession was due by 28 August 2018. The Commission held that the builder “miserably failed” to offer possession within the stipulated or grace period. Citing Arifur Rehman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes [2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544] and Aashish Oberai v. Emaar MGF [I (2017) CPJ 17 (NC)], the Commission observed that the builder’s delay and continued holding of the complainants’ money for an indefinite period amounted to serious deficiency in service. The complainants could not be compelled to accept delayed possession after such a long lapse.

The Commission directed the builder to refund ₹1,02,99,704 along with interest calculated as follows:

• 6% per annum from the date of each payment till 23 July 2025, if refunded by 23 September 2025;
• 9% per annum from the date of each payment till actual realization if the refund is not made within the stipulated time.

Additionally, the builder was directed to pay:

• ₹4,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
• ₹50,000 as litigation costs.

Also Read: NCLT New Delhi Rules, Development Rights Crystallised Before Termination Of Collaboration Agreement Form Part Of Corporate Debtor's Assets

With this, the complaint was allowed and the case disposed of.

Appearance

For Complainants: PSP Legal, Advocates and Solicitors

For Opposite Parties: T & T Law 

Cause Title: Shivangi Suri & Anr. V. Capital Heights Pvt Ltd

Case No: Consumer Complaint 205/2021

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal [President], Hon’ble Ms. Pinki [Member (Judicial)]