Punjab RERA Orders Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers To Refund Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Pranav B Prem
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has directed Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers to refund the money paid by a homebuyer for a flat in its project “The Lake, Omaxe”, after finding that the developer failed to deliver possession within the contractual time and that the buyer was entitled to withdraw from the project and claim refund under Section 18(1) of RERA.
A Bench comprising Arunvir Vashista (Member) was hearing a complaint filed by the allottee who had booked a flat on 13 August 2014 in the developer’s residential project. As recorded in the allotment letter issued in May 2015, possession was contractually required to be handed over within 48 months, including a six-month grace period, i.e., on or before June 2019. The complainant continued to make payments and had paid ₹52,24,651 by April 2023. The buyer had also obtained a home loan of ₹45 lakh from State Bank of India in 2016 on the expectation that the project would be completed in time.
Instead of delivering the unit as agreed, the developer issued an “offer of possession” on 1 August 2023 accompanied by a revised cost sheet. The revised figures showed both an increase in the super area (from 1,285 sq. ft. to 1,405 sq. ft.) and an escalation in total cost — increasing the buyer’s payable amount by approximately ₹7 lakh. The complainant asserted that there was no agreement permitting unilateral escalation of cost on the basis of revised area after the promised delivery date had expired. The complaint seeking refund was filed on 21 August 2023 after the delay had already exceeded four years.
Omaxe contended that the complainant could not seek refund because an offer of possession had already been issued. Relying on Section 19(10) of the RERA Act, the developer argued that the buyer was bound to take possession within two months of the issuance of the offer. It was further claimed that the flat had been completed and the complainant was attempting to avoid possession on account of investment motives rather than genuine necessity.
The Authority rejected this contention after a detailed examination of the statutory framework. It observed that Section 18(1) of the Act grants an allottee “an indefeasible right to seek refund” where the promoter fails to complete the project or hand over possession by the date specified in the agreement. It was held that the developer could not rely on Section 19(10) in the present case because the Occupancy Certificate — which triggers that provision — was issued only in October 2023, whereas the complaint had already been filed well before that date, on 21 August 2023. The Authority stated that the delayed issuance of the Occupancy Certificate could not defeat the buyer’s right to withdraw and seek refund.
The Authority concluded that the failure to deliver possession within the agreed timeline entitled the complainant to exit the project and recover the amount paid. It also noted that once the buyer exercises the right to seek refund under Section 18(1), the unilateral increase in cost by the developer carries no legal relevance.
Allowing the complaint, the Authority directed the developer to refund the entire amount deposited by the homebuyer along with interest at the rate of highest MCLR + 2% from the date of each deposit until the date of refund. It further clarified that State Bank of India, being the lender, shall have the first charge over the refund amount.
Cause Title: Prof. (Dr.) Anuradha Sharma v. Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: RERA/GC No. 0294 of 2023
Coram: Arunvir Vashista (Member)
