In a landmark ruling strengthening the rights of aggrieved homebuyers, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Consumer Complaint No. 205/2021, passed a significant order against Capital Heights Pvt. Ltd. for failure to hand over possession of a residential flat within the stipulated timeline. Invoking its powers under Section 14(1)(c) and Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission directed the builder to refund the entire consideration amount of ₹1,02,99,704 to the complainants.
In addition to the refund, the Commission awarded ₹4,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and ₹50,000 towards litigation costs—reflecting the acknowledgment of prolonged suffering caused by the delay. Crucially, the Commission also imposed an interest liability: if the refund is made by 23rd July 2025, interest @6% per annum shall apply; in the event of delayed payment beyond this date, a higher penal interest @9% per annum shall accrue. Such a robust interest direction is rarely seen in RERA proceedings or even in other consumer forums, reaffirming the Commission’s commitment to deterrence and justice.
🔍 Case Background
Complainants Shivangi Suri and Karan Suri had booked a unit in Capital Heights’ Gurugram project by paying a booking amount of ₹10,00,000. An allotment letter was issued in September 2014, followed by a Flat Buyer Agreement in October 2014. As per the revised agreement, the builder was obligated to hand over possession within 42 months plus 180 days grace period, effectively setting the delivery deadline to August 2018.
Despite paying over ₹1.02 crore under a construction-linked payment plan, the complainants did not receive possession even after seven years. Multiple communications yielded no concrete response, prompting them to file a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Read also NCDRC’s Landmark Interim Order: Strengthening Consumer Rights in Real Estate Disputes
🧑⚖️ Builder’s Defence: Contractual Dispute & Force Majeure
The builder argued that:
- The complaint was not maintainable in consumer jurisdiction due to the contractual nature of the dispute.
- Possession was delayed due to force majeure events such as:
- NGT bans on dust and sand mining,
- Haryana Pollution Control Board restrictions,
- Demonetisation, and
- COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the Commission rejected all these contentions, relying on precedents from the NCDRC and Supreme Court, including:
- Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.
- Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima
- Sachin Goel v. Ansal Housing
The Commission emphasized that such delays were foreseeable or manageable and could not be disguised under “force majeure.”
✅ Commission’s Observations:
- Consumer Jurisdiction Maintained: The dispute was squarely within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, as failure to deliver possession constituted a clear deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Act.
- Builder Held Liable: Despite obtaining an Occupancy Certificate in 2021, the Commission held that delayed possession cannot be forced upon the allottee, who is within rights to seek a refund.
- Mental Agony Compensation: In an exceptional departure from RERA trends, the Commission awarded:
- ₹4,00,000 for mental harassment,
- ₹50,000 as litigation cost, and
- Interest on refund amount as follows:
💸 Interest on Refund: A Two-Tier Directive
- If Payment Made On or Before 23.09.2025:
- 6% p.a. interest from the date of each installment till judgment date (23.07.2025).
- If Delayed Beyond 23.09.2025:
- 9% p.a. interest from the date of each installment until actual realization.
This bifurcated interest clause incentivizes early compliance while penalizing delay, showing judicial mindfulness toward enforcement hurdles faced by buyers.
⚖️ Key Takeaways for Homebuyers and Legal Professionals
- This decision reaffirms the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums even in the face of contractual defences and RERA’s parallel jurisdiction.
- 9% interest on refund—triggered upon non-payment by the cut-off date—is significantly higher than usual RERA compensations (often capped at SBI MCLR + 2%).
- Award of ₹4 lakh for mental agony stands out, as RERA generally disallows such claims citing Section 18 of the Act which limits relief to refund and interest.
- The ruling clearly sets a precedent that delayed possession after a long lapse makes refund a right—not an option.
📌 Conclusion
This case serves as a landmark in holding builders accountable beyond routine RERA remedies. It signals that State Consumer Commissions are not toothless forums and can exercise their full powers under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act to ensure justice is done—compensating not just financially, but also recognising the emotional toll and legal burden borne by allottees.
📚 Case Citation:
Shivangi Suri & Anr. vs. Capital Heights Pvt Ltd
Consumer Complaint No. 205/2021 | Decided on: 23.07.2025
Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Member)
👉 Click here to read and download the order
📰 For more consumer & RERA law updates, visit: www.thelawsuits.in
📣 Published in public interest by:
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani
Citizens Justice Forum | The Law Suits
📍 413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom, Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053
📱 +91-8928372392 | ✉️ adv.bhimani@gmail.com
#LegalAwareness #NCDRC #StateCommission #HousingRights #JusticeForHomebuyers #LawForAll #LandmarkJudgment #AdvocateSulaimanBhimani #LegalNewsIndia #ConsumerRights #RealEstateDisputes #DelayedPossession #BuilderDeficiency #ConsumerForum #ConsumerCourtIndia #RERAIndia #HomebuyerJustice #FlatRefund #ConsumerProtectionAct #MentalAgonyCompensation #DelhiConsumerCommission #CapitalHeightsJudgment #TheLawSuits #CitizensJusticeForum