New Delhi District Commission Finds Ansal Landmark Townships Liable for Possession Delay

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shri Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Ansal Landmark Townships liable for negligence and deficiency in service due to their failure to deliver possession of the booked unit within the designated time.


The Complainant entered into an agreement with M/S Ansal Landmark Townships Private Limited (“Builder”) on 23rd August 2009 for a residential unit in “Aastha Apartment” located in Sushant City, Meerut, for a total of Rs. 6,90,379/-. The agreement stipulated that the Builder was obligated, as per Clause 5, to complete construction within two years from the commencement date following receipt of the sanctioned plan from the competent authority. Despite this, the Builder failed to notify the Complainant about the sanctioning of the plan or the commencement of construction.

The Complainant, through their advocate, initially issued a legal notice seeking updates on the construction status and the anticipated possession date of their unit from the Builder. However, this notice was returned undelivered with a note stating “No such Company.” Undeterred, the Complainant then sent another notice to the Builder’s most recent address, which was successfully served, but unfortunately, the Builder chose not to respond.

Frustrated by the lack of communication and progress, the Complainant decided to escalate the matter and approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (“District Commission”). Here, they filed a formal consumer complaint against the Builder, seeking redress for their grievances regarding the delayed possession and the Builder’s apparent lack of response to their legitimate queries.

The Builder contested the complaint, arguing it was misconceived and asserting that the Complainant did not qualify as a consumer. Additionally, The Builder referred to Clause 32 of the agreement, which stipulated that disputes must first be resolved amicably through mutual discussion or arbitration if necessary. Moreover, The Builder contended that the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction since the property in question did not fall within its jurisdictional boundaries.


The District Commission found that the significant delay in handing over possession of the unit amounted to a deficiency in service. The agreement, signed on August 23, 2009, had resulted in incomplete construction with no clear timeline for possession.

Referring to Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines ‘unfair trade practices’ as employing unfair or deceptive methods to promote goods or services, the District Commission cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta [1994 (1) SCC 243]. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that delay in possession constitutes both deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Additionally, the District Commission noted the Supreme Court’s stance in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. vs. Trevor D’Lima and Ors. [2018 (5) SCC 442], emphasizing that buyers should not be subjected to indefinite waiting periods for possession. The court affirmed that affected individuals are entitled to a refund along with compensation in such circumstances.

Regarding the Builder’s contention that the Complainant did not qualify as a consumer, the District Commission determined that there was no evidence supporting the claim that the Complainant had booked the unit for investment purposes.

As a result, the District Commission found the Builder responsible for deficiency in service. The Commission issued the following orders:

  1. The Builder was mandated to reimburse Rs. 6,90,379/- to the Complainant, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum.
  2. Furthermore, the Builder was instructed to provide compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and harassment.

Additionally, the Builder was directed to reimburse Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner  

President Citizens Justice Forum  

YouTube Channel  


WhatsApp +91 99877 43676

E: Mail

Click Here To Read And Download The Order

Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner