Homebuyer Cannot Be Made To Wait Indefinitely For Possession: Chandigarh State Consumer Commission Orders WTC Chandigarh To Refund ₹69.3 Lakh
Pranav B Prem
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete construction and deliver possession of a commercial unit within the stipulated timeline. A Bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member) observed that an allottee cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession of a unit, particularly when the developer has already received a substantial portion of the sale consideration.
The complaint was filed by Ramanjit Sidhu and Mannat Chandail against M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The complainants had entered into a Developer Buyer Agreement dated 19 May 2018 for the purchase of a commercial unit measuring 1000 square feet in the project “WTC Chandigarh – Retail Space”, located at Aerocity, Mohali, for a total consideration of ₹86,80,000. The complainants paid a sum of ₹69,30,631 between February 2018 and January 2024, which constituted approximately 80% of the total sale consideration.
As per Clause 4.4 of the Developer Buyer Agreement, the developer was required to deliver possession of the unit within a period of 48 months along with a grace period of six months, i.e., on or before 18 November 2022. However, despite receiving a substantial portion of the sale consideration, the developer failed to complete construction and hand over possession of the unit within the stipulated period.
The complainants submitted that repeated requests were made to the developer seeking possession of the unit, but no response was received. They contended that the developer’s failure to deliver possession despite receiving a major portion of the sale consideration amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, compelling them to approach the Commission seeking refund of the amount paid along with interest.
In their written reply, the developer raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. It was argued that the complainants had purchased the unit for commercial purposes and therefore did not fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. The developer also contended that proceedings had already been initiated before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) by the WTC CHD (Mohali) Allottees Welfare Association on behalf of several allottees seeking completion of the project.
However, during the proceedings, several opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission despite service of notice and were proceeded against ex parte. The Commission observed that the non-appearance of these parties warranted an adverse inference against them and that the allegations made by the complainants therefore remained unrebutted.
Rejecting the developer’s contention that the complainants were not consumers, the Commission noted that the complainants had specifically stated that the unit was purchased for the purpose of earning their livelihood. It further observed that the developer had failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that the complainants were property investors or engaged in large-scale commercial activity. The Commission held that mere purchase of a commercial unit does not automatically exclude a person from the definition of consumer when the unit is intended for self-employment or livelihood.
The Commission also rejected the argument regarding the pendency of proceedings before the RERA. It observed that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of other statutory remedies, and therefore the pendency of proceedings before the RERA does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.
On examining the material on record, the Commission found that possession of the unit had not been delivered even long after the stipulated deadline of 18 November 2022. The developer had also failed to produce any completion certificate, occupancy certificate, or any material demonstrating that the project had been completed or that possession had been offered within the agreed timeframe.
The Commission observed that the delay in the present case was substantial and wholly unexplained. It noted that the developer had retained a significant amount of ₹69,30,631 paid by the complainants for several years without delivering the promised unit, which constituted a clear breach of contractual and statutory obligations.
Emphasising the rights of homebuyers, the Commission observed that “a homebuyer/allottee cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession and is entitled to seek refund where the delay is unreasonable and defeats the very purpose of the agreement.”
The Commission also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan and Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima, which recognise the right of an allottee to seek refund in cases of inordinate delay in delivery of possession. Reference was also made to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The Commission further observed that the conduct of the developer indicated that it had retained the complainants’ money for years without completing construction or offering possession. Such conduct, the Commission held, amounted to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
In view of these findings, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to refund the amount of ₹69,30,631 to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until realization. The Commission also directed the developer to pay ₹75,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹35,000 towards litigation costs. The refund amount was directed to be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which it would carry penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum until realization.
Cause Title: Ramanjit Sidhu & Anr. v. M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/74/2025
Coram: Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member)
