DLF Held Liable for 7-Year Delay: Delhi Commission Orders ₹15 Lakh Refund with Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Ms. Bimla Kumari (Presiding Member), allowed a consumer complaint filed against DLF Gayatri Developers, holding it liable for inordinate delay in handing over possession in its “Garden City” housing project at Mahboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh. The Commission directed the builder to refund ₹15,19,467.55 to the complainant, along with interest and additional compensation of ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and ₹50,000 as litigation costs.
The complainant, Akshat Bansal, had applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 356 square yards through an “Application for Allotment” dated 19.10.2012, and paid ₹1,20,000 as booking amount. The booking was confirmed by the developer on 08.12.2012, and the total cost of the plot was stated to be ₹20,00,167. The complainant continued to make payments under the construction-linked payment plan and by 12.04.2014, had already paid ₹14,66,304.
The complainant submitted that possession was promised within 24 months of booking. However, when he personally visited the site in Hyderabad, he found that no development work had commenced. Despite repeated emails, including one dated 15.12.2017, pointing out the non-development and quality issues, the developer failed to rectify the situation. Instead, a reply email dated 18.12.2017 was sent, which the Commission later found to be evasive and misleading.
The complainant also submitted that the developer kept issuing fresh demands for club membership and common area maintenance fees, while no such facilities existed on the ground. The developer allegedly threatened to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount already paid. Other allottees in the same project had received compensation for similar issues, but the complainant was denied any remedy, despite issuing a legal notice dated 09.07.2019 seeking refund and compensation.
In response, DLF Gayatri Developers denied liability. It raised several preliminary objections:
That the complainant was not a "consumer" but an investor;
That the Delhi State Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction since the project was located in Andhra Pradesh;
That there existed an arbitration clause in the allotment agreement;
That the delay was due to force majeure events such as the Telangana movement and delays in statutory approvals;
That possession had already been offered via letter dated 02.05.2019, but the complainant failed to accept it and defaulted in further payments.
Findings of the Commission
The Commission dismissed all preliminary objections raised by the developer.
On the question of consumer status, the Commission referred to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and observed that the onus was on the developer to show that the complainant had purchased the property for commercial gain. Since there was no evidence to this effect, the Commission held that the complainant was a consumer under the Act.
As for territorial jurisdiction, the Commission relied on Rohit Srivastava vs Paramount Villas Ltd [017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198] and held that since the registered office of the developer is located at Sansad Marg, New Delhi, the Delhi State Commission has jurisdiction.
Regarding the arbitration clause, the Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh [I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC)] and reaffirmed that consumer forums have jurisdiction despite the presence of arbitration clauses in builder-buyer agreements.
Deficiency in Service
On the main issue of deficiency, the Commission noted that as per clause 11(a) of the allotment letter, possession was to be handed over within 24 months from the booking date — i.e., by October 2014. However, the offer of possession was made only on 02.05.2019 — nearly five years after the committed date. The Commission also noted that the complainant had paid approximately 75% of the total cost by September 2013 itself.
The developer’s explanation for delay—force majeure arising from the Telangana movement and contractor shortages—was rejected as it had failed to submit any supporting documents. The Commission emphasized that it was the responsibility of the developer to arrange for labour and ensure timely development.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020), the Commission reiterated that failure to deliver possession within the contractually promised period amounts to deficiency in service, entitling the complainant to refund and compensation.
The Commission observed: “The Opposite Party has no right to use or sit over the Complainant’s hard-earned money… the Complainant has been left in the lurch after paying a substantial part of the plot cost and has been denied both possession and refund.”
Final Relief Granted
Accordingly, the Commission directed DLF Gayatri Developers to:
Refund ₹15,19,467.55 with 6% interest per annum from the date of each payment till the date of judgment (19.06.2025), provided payment is made on or before 19.08.2025.
In case of default beyond 19.08.2025, interest would be enhanced to 9% per annum until realization.
Pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Pay ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.
The Commission disposed of the complaint with these directions and ordered that a copy of the judgment be provided to all parties free of cost.
Appearance
For Complainant: Mr. Kapil Jain, Advocate
For Opposite Party: Mr. Kalyan Kumar Thevar, Advocate
Cause Title: Sh. Akshat Bansal V. M/s DLF Gayatri Developers
Case No: CC No. 897/2019
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Bimla Kumari [Presiding Member]
