IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 98 OF 2020 WITH NC/IA/1746/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REPLY)

NC/IA/18181/2024 (PREPONMENT OF DATE OF HEARING)

NC/IA/13102/2025 (EARLY HEARING)

Abhishek Kumsi & Apr. Complainant(s)

Versus Adithya Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

& 2.Ors. Opp. Party(s)

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 99 OF 2020 WITH NC/IA/1747/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REPLY)

NC/IA/18182/2024 (PREPONMENT OF DATE OF HEARING)

NC/IA/13103/2025 (EARLY HEARING)

K.S. Aravindkumar & Anr. Complainant(s)

Versus Adithya Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

& 2 Ors. Opp. Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd), PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For the Complainant (s) : Mr. Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party (s): Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Advocate Dated : 08.01.2026

ORDER

Heard learned counsels for both the parties in detail.

It is an admitted position that, in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties dated 05.10.2012, of the total consideration of Rs.76,66,400 for each of the two Flats, the Complainants paid Rs.68,97,600 per Flat and the balance is due to be paid for each of the two Flats is Rs.7,66,400.

It is also undisputed that OP offered possession was to the Complainants, along with OC vide OP letter dated 28.07.2022.

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the OP that in the absence of any specific stipulation in the agreement between the parties for handing over possession, no delay compensation is payable.

As regards such contracts which do not provide for date of handing over possession, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known As M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) v. Trevor D’lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, decided on 12.03.2018, has held that:

"Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

Since the terms of agreement was entered into between the parties on 05.10.2012 and the said agreement does not provide for the date on which the possession was to be handed over, the OP was obliged to hand over of the possession of the units to the Complainants on or before 05.10.2015. The offer of possession was admittedly made for the first time by the OP to the Complainants on 28.07.2022. Therefore, OP is liable to pay delay compensation to the Complainants for the period commencing from 06.10.2015 till 28.07.2022.

The learned counsel for OP states that the Flats are ready in all respects. The learned counsel for Complainants states that the Complainants are in immediate need of the Flats and seeks to take possession as early as possible.

. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the Complainants are liable to pay the balance due as consideration along with penalty @ 18% per annum, as per the terms of agreement dated 05.10.2012. At the same time, in terms of Para 5 of the terms of the said agreement, OP was liable to pay Complainants rentals Rs. 10 per sq. ft. each flat per month for delay in handing over possession.

The OP is, therefore, directed to deduct the balance consideration of Rs.7,66,400 each due from the Complainants, along with interest