Failing To Deliver Possession Within Stipulated Period: NCDRC Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant applied for a shop in the Radeo Drive Complex at TDI City, Kundli, for self-employment for herself and her son for a total cost of Rs.27,50,000. She initially paid Rs.5,50,000 and later signed a buyer agreement with the builder for shop No. 188 on the ground floor, measuring about 500 sq. ft. She subsequently paid Rs.16,50,000 in installments, making a total payment of Rs.22,00,000. As per the agreement, the builder was required to hand over possession within 24 months plus a 6-month grace period but failed to do so. Despite written notices and reminders, possession was not delivered. While some shops in the same complex are operational, the complainant's shop has not been completed even after ten years. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission of Haryana, which allowed the complaint. It directed the builder to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for delay in handing over the possession and Rs. 1,10,000 as litigation costs. Consequently, the builder appealed before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Builder

The builder argued that the complainant had no standing to approach the State Commission. They stated that under the definition of “consumer” in the Consumer Protection Act, a person engaging in commercial activity can qualify as a consumer only if it is for self-employment. The complainant, already running a boutique, had booked a commercial shop, suggesting an intent to expand business for profit rather than self-sustenance. The builder also highlighted that the complainant lives far from the shop, making personal operation unlikely. They cited the Rohit Chaudhary vs. M/s Vipul Ltd. case, where the court held that a commercial shop must be purchased for self-sustenance to fall under consumer protection.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the main issue was whether there was a deficiency in service by the builder. The builder argued that the complainant was not a consumer, claiming the shop was purchased for commercial purposes. However, it was unclear if the boutique operated at home or the shop. Even if it was used for self-employment or by her son, this did not disqualify her as a consumer under the law. The builder provided no evidence to support their claim, and reliance was placed on the case Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estate Ltd., which held similar contentions invalid. The shop was booked for Rs.27,50,000, of which Rs.22,00,000 was paid. A buyer's agreement stated possession would be delivered within 24 months plus a grace period. Over 14 years passed, and the builder failed to deliver possession, which was deemed a clear deficiency in service. The commission rejected multiple compensations for a single deficiency, as per DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs. D.S. Dhanda. However, the Commission held that the complainant was entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum on the deposited amount from the promised possession date until actual possession, as upheld in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. The Commission modified the State Commission's order and directed the builder to hand over the shop after receiving the balance payment, pay delay compensation at 6% interest, compensation for mental agony of Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs.1,00,000 as litigation costs.

Case Title: M/S. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita

Case Number: F.A. No. 890/2021

Click Here To Read/Download The Order