SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2949

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.P. Sood, Judicial Member, Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member
Kiran Gulati – Appellant
Versus
Trishul Towers Pvt.Ltd. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/6/CC/356/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pranjal P. Chaudhary
For the Respondents: S.C. Sharma, H.S. Lalli

Failure by a developer to hand over possession of a residential apartment within the contractually stipulated period constitutes a deficiency in service, entitling the consumer to the delivery of possession along with liquidated damages as provided in the buyer agreement.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Delay in handing over possession of residential apartment - Complainant purchased flat from original allottee - Agreements provided 36 months plus 6 months grace period for delivery - Developers failed to deliver within time, citing force majeure and pending occupancy certificate - Held, failure to adhere to agreed timelines constitutes deficiency in service - Developers directed to hand over physical possession and pay liquidated damages as per contractual terms.

Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a residential flat from an original allottee in a project developed by the opposite parties. Despite payments exceeding the sale consideration, the developers failed to deliver possession within the contractually stipulated period (36 months plus 6 months grace). The developers contended that delays were due to external development and pending occupancy certificates. The complainant filed a complaint seeking possession, interest, and compensation.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that there was a gross violation of agreed timelines in the Buyer Agreement. It was held that the developers were deficient in service for failing to deliver the unit on time.

Issues: Whether the delay in handing over possession of the residential apartment constitutes a deficiency in service and whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and possession.

Ratio Decidendi: When a developer fails to comply with the time-bound delivery commitments specified in a Buyer Agreement, such failure constitutes a clear deficiency in service, entitling the consumer to delivery of possession and contractual liquidated damages.

Result: Complaint allowed; OPs directed to deliver possession and pay compensation for the delay.

ORDER

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

OPs had floated a scheme under the name and style of “Palm Residency” in Sector 75 & 76, Faridabad, Haryana comprising of multi-storied residential apartments. OP allotted Apartment No. 904, having area of 1240 sq. ft. on 9th Floor of Tower No. C-5 to Parmeet Kaur vide allotment letter dated 17.08.2012. The total sale consideration of the said flat was Rs.36,98,040/-, which was to be paid in installments as per payment schedule. Parmeet Kaur paid Rs.2,85,200/- on 13.05.2012 as booking amount with the application and further paid Rs.2,85,200/- on 31.07.2012. Buyers Agreement dated 17.08.2012 was executed between OP and Parmeet Kaur. Complainant and Seema Aggarwal purchased the said flat/apartment from Parmeet Kaur-original allottee. OP transferred all rights of said apartment in the name of complainant and Seema Aggarwal on 14.02.2013. The payment of Rs.5,70,400/- was made by the complainant and Seema Aggarwal as demanded by OP, thereby putting them in the same legal position in which the original allottee was hitherto. Buyers Agreement dated 17.08.2012 was endorsed in favour of complainant and Seema Aggarwal on 14.02.2013. It was assured by OP at the time of purchasing said apartment that possession of apartment will be handed over within 36 months from the date of application. But lateron OP turned down from their words by mentioning in the Buyer Agreement that possession of apartment will be handed over to complainant within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement. On 06.11.2013 Seema Aggarwal withdrew her name from the said flat due to some financial reasons by executing an affidavit of No Objection that the said flat/apartment be transferred wholly in the name of complainant. On 09.11.2013, OPs deleted the name of Seema Aggarwal from joint ownership and the apartment was entirely endorsed in the name of complainant. Complainant paid total Rs.37,45,152/- on different dates, but there is no progress on the site despite the regular payments made by complainant as demanded by OPs. Even after a lapse of more than two years from the stipulated date of delivery of possession, OPs are not in a position to handover possession of the flat. Complainant filed the present complaint for issuance of directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.37,45,152/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposits till its realization; OR to deliver physical possession of the said apartment to the complainant within 30 days; to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant; to pay Rs.5.00 lacs towards compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and Rs.44,000/- towards litigation to complainant.

Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its written defence and has taken the preliminary objections that complaint is without any cause of action. OP No. 2 & 3 under collaboration got license No.61 of 2007 from Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for developing a ‘Group Housing Colony’ on the land measuring 10.925 acres at Sector 75 & 76, Faridabad, which was divided in three parts i.e. Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 each having separate and independent entry and exit gates. Tower No. C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and C-5 of this colony fall in Site No. 3 and named as “Palm Residency” having 298 flats. OP No. 1 got an authority from OP No. 2 & 3 to develop/construct and sell 214 Flats out of the said 298 flats, which were to be constructed in Tower Nos. C-3, C-4 & C-5. Accordingly, OP No. 1 has developed and constructed Tower C-3, C-4 & C-5 in the said Project and on completion applied for grant of occupancy certificate from the competent authority in April, 2017. Complainant instead of taking possession of said flat has filed the present complaint. Complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. As per record of the OP No. 1, complainant agreed to purchase flat No. 702, 7th Floor, Tower C-3 in the said project on terms and conditions contained in Agreement dated 17.08.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top