A Bengaluru-based builder, Dee Mandala Infrastructure (P) Ltd, has been directed to refund Rs 49.5 lakh to a buyer for failing to complete the construction of an apartment within the promised timeframe. The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also mandated the builder to pay an additional Rs 2 lakh for service deficiency and Rs 25,000 as litigation costs.
The buyer had initially paid Rs 19.4 lakh upfront for a flat in the builder’s Hennur project, with the expectation of receiving possession within 18 months from October 26, 2012. Subsequently, the buyer raised a home loan, contributing another Rs 30 lakh towards the purchase. However, the project remained incomplete well beyond the agreed date, with construction halting for almost three years. Frustrated by the prolonged delay and the lack of response to multiple notices, the buyer filed a complaint against Dee Mandala Infrastructure and its directors, Raghu Ram and Mahadeva Gowda, on November 25, 2015. Despite the builder appearing through its advocate, no formal response was filed, and the directors were notably absent during the proceedings.
The commission’s investigation revealed a clear deficiency in service on the part of the developers. As a result, they were ordered to refund the buyer Rs 49.5 lakh with an annual interest rate of 12% from the respective dates of payment until full realisation. Additionally, the commission awarded Rs 2 lakh to the buyer for the mental anguish and financial loss endured due to the delay, along with Rs 25,000 for litigation expenses. This ruling underscores the accountability of real estate developers towards timely project completion and adherence to contractual commitments. The consumer protection framework ensures that developers cannot escape liability for service deficiencies, safeguarding buyers’ investments and interests.
The buyer’s persistence in seeking redressal through the legal system highlights the importance of holding developers accountable for project delays. This case serves as a reminder to the real estate industry about the critical need for timely project execution and transparent communication with buyers. Legal experts view this decision as a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle that developers must meet their contractual obligations or face financial consequences. The order to refund the substantial amount, along with interest and additional compensation, sends a strong message to the real estate sector about the importance of maintaining trust and reliability in transactions. As the real estate market continues to evolve, regulatory bodies and consumer courts play a vital role in ensuring fair practices and protecting buyers from potential exploitation. This case is a testament to the effectiveness of legal recourse available to consumers and the stringent measures in place to address grievances in the sector.
