Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orders Full Refund and Compensation for Delayed Possession in Ansal Housing Case

Commission rules in favor of complainants, citing continuous cause of action and deficiency in service - The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC) has ruled in favor of the complainants, Mr. Vikas Jain and Ms. Mona Garg, in a case against Ansal Housing Ltd., ordering a full refund of Rs. 96,46,580 with interest, along with additional compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Hon'ble Mr. J.P. Agrawal, highlights the deficiency in service and the continuous cause of action due to the non-delivery of the promised residential unit.

The complainants, Mr. Vikas Jain and Ms. Mona Garg, both residents of California, USA, applied for a residential unit in Ansal Housing Ltd.'s project 'Estella' in Gurgaon in October 2010. Despite paying a substantial amount of Rs. 96,46,580, the possession of the unit was not handed over as per the agreed timeline in the Apartment Buyer Agreement dated July 20, 2012. The complainants alleged deficiency of service and sought a refund, interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses.

The Commission emphasized that the failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuous wrong, providing a recurrent cause of action. Referring to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission stated that the complainants were within their rights to file the complaint as the possession was neither delivered nor refunded. Citing the case of Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd., the Commission reiterated that non-delivery of possession is a continuous wrong, maintaining the complainants' cause to approach the consumer court.

The Opposite Party argued that the complainants did not qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, claiming the purchase was for commercial purposes. However, the Commission found no merit in this argument, noting that the Opposite Party failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting the commercial purpose claim. The Commission referred to judgments such as Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited and Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., affirming that purchasing multiple properties does not inherently indicate a commercial purpose.

The Opposite Party cited force majeure clauses, attributing delays to factors like groundwater extraction bans, sand mining bans, and demonetization. The Commission rejected these defenses, referencing similar cases where such claims were dismissed. The judgments in Sachin Goel & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited and Narinder Sachdeva & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited underscored that these circumstances did not constitute force majeure, as alternative solutions like using tankers for water were available.

The Commission found Ansal Housing Ltd. deficient in providing services, as they failed to fulfill their contractual obligations despite receiving timely payments. The Hon'ble Apex Court's interpretation in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. was cited, defining deficiency in service as any fault or inadequacy in the quality or manner of performance under a contract.The judgment extensively discussed the continuous nature of the cause of action due to non-delivery of possession. The Commission held that the complainants were entitled to a refund and compensation for the deficiency in service. It was emphasized that the mere delay and false assurances by the Opposite Party constituted a breach of contractual obligations, justifying the complainants' claims.

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal remarked, "The Opposite Party's failure to deliver possession and false assurances constitute a clear deficiency in service, warranting the relief sought by the complainants."

The DSCDRC's judgment underscores the importance of timely possession in real estate transactions and reaffirms the rights of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. By holding Ansal Housing Ltd. accountable for the delay and deficiency in service, the Commission has reinforced the legal framework protecting consumers from exploitation. This decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the continuous cause of action in real estate disputes.

Date of Decision: 05.07.2024