Delay in possession by the builder entitles homebuyers to a full refund of deposits, as per consumer protection laws.

1. Heard Ms. Anubha Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rahul Kriplani, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. Above complaints have been filed for directing Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (the opposite party) to (i) handover possession of the apartments, within stipulated period and in no case, later than 30.6.2017; (ii) pay interest @ 18% per annum, compounded quarterly on the amount deposited by the complainants from the date of deposit till offer of possession; (iii) refund excess amount deposited by the complainants with interest @18% per annum, compounded quarterly from the date of deposit till the date of refund; (iv) consider advance deposit of the complainants under "My Gain" scheme and pay interest on it; (v) withdraw demand letters wherein interest is being charged from the complainants; (vi) pay Rs.20,00,000 as punitive damages; (vii) pay Rs.20,00,000, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (viii) pay costs of litigation; and (ix) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. As the complaints are for similar reliefs against same opposite party as such these complaints are consolidated and decided by a common order.

3. The complainants filed IA / 8/2021 in CC / 2107/2016, IA / 9/2021 in CC / 2108/2016 and IA / 10/2021 in CC / 2109/2016, for amending prayer clause of the complaints and by praying for refund of entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @24% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund on the grounds that (i) the opposite party has delayed delivery of possession for 8 years although entire sale consideration was deposited by them in the year 2012; (ii) the construction as raised by the opposite party is of poor quality; (iii) the carpet area has been substantially reduced from the promised area; and (iv) They are in dire need of money to meet out unexpected health emergency. The complainants stated that for paying sale consideration, they had taken loan and paid huge amount towards interest on it. Amita Jain (the complainant) has been diagnosed with stage three cancer, which required long term costly treatment. She was undergoing treatment.
The opposite party filed its replies in the above applications and contested them. The opposite party stated that the complaint had been filed for possession and other consequential reliefs. Allegations of poor quality of construction and reduction in the carpet area are incorrect and an afterthought. At the verge of final hearing, the complainants are changing the nature of the complaints, which is not permissible under the law, as held by Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builder and Developers v. Narayanaswamy , 2009 (VII) SLT 537 : 2009 (V) CLT 39 (SC) : 2009 (10) SCC 84 .
Supreme Court in L.I.C. v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., 2022 (VII) SLT 563 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC1128, after review of entire law on the amendment of pleadings and prayer, laid down the principles for dealing with the amendment applications; which inter alia held that where amendment sought is only in respect of relief in the plaint and is predicated on the facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
In these cases inordinate delay in offer of possession and medical emergency of the complainants are facts, arose after filing of the complaints. The facts of inferior quality of construction and substantial reduction in the carpet area came to the notice of the complainants, when they were permitted to visit the flats. It is well within jurisdiction of the Court to take its notice of subsequent facts and mould the relief, accordingly. It is well settled that inordinate delay in offer of possession, a