The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, has directed a real estate firm and its two directors to refund Rs 62.7 lakh to a Zirakpur couple after the developer repeatedly delayed possession of their apartment and issued a possession letter despite the absence of a fire safety certificate.
The commission also ordered the builder to pay Rs 75,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 35,000 towards litigation costs. The refund will carry 12% annual interest calculated from the respective dates on which the buyers deposited the money. The amount and other payments must be made within 30 days.
Saurabh Verma and his wife, Puja Rani, booked a 1,590-square-foot apartment for Rs 66.5 lakh in October 2022. Possession was originally scheduled for October 31, 2023. The couple paid Rs 62.7 lakh, including Rs 40.1 lakh financed through a home loan, but the developer did not deliver the apartment within the agreed timeline.
According to the complaint, the developer extended the possession deadline three times. The revised schedules moved possession first to November 2024, then July 2025 and finally December 31, 2025. The firm initially paid the couple Rs 30,000 per month as delay compensation, but stopped the payments after a year. The commission directed that compensation paid between November 2023 and November 2024 be adjusted against the final refund.
The buyers also alleged that the builder demanded additional money for finishing work despite the slow pace of construction. They said the firm threatened to cancel the agreement and charge 24% interest if the additional payments were not made. On September 27, 2025, the developer issued a possession letter, which the couple refused to accept, citing incomplete construction and missing statutory approvals.
An RTI response dated January 2, 2026, confirmed that the apartment did not have a fire safety certificate, according to the complaint. The commission observed that issuing a possession letter without the required statutory clearances did not establish that the apartment was fit for occupation. It held that lawful possession required more than a document from the developer declaring that possession was available.
The commission’s order also noted that the builder’s defence was struck off on April 16, 2026, after the firm failed to file its written reply within the prescribed 45-day period. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the commission held that homebuyers could not be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession or accept an incomplete apartment.
It said a builder’s obligation was to deliver the contracted residential unit within the stipulated period, in a habitable condition and in conformity with applicable statutory requirements. The commission treated the repeated delays, discontinuation of compensation and demands for additional funds as deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It also noted that the couple had paid nearly 95% of the flat’s total cost while lawful and habitable possession remained unestablished. The builder and its directors have been directed to complete the refund and related payments within 30 days.
