The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that obtaining an occupancy certificate is irrelevant for builders if possession of the property is delayed beyond the agreed timeline. This ruling came while ordering a full refund for a homebuyer in Bengaluru, even though possession was being offered. The homebuyer had booked an ultra-luxury apartment worth over Rs. 6.8 crore in 2015 with scheduled possession in October 2016. However, possession was only offered in 2020, over three and a half years later. Rejecting the builder's arguments, NCDRC stated the date of receiving occupancy certificate does not matter to homebuyers if possession is not given on time. It ordered the builder to fully refund the deposited amount along with interest, noting inordinate delay in possession of over three years.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that whether a builder has obtained the occupancy certificate (OC) is irrelevant to a homebuyer if the date of possession is delayed. The commission made this ruling while ordering a full refund for a homebuyer, even though possession was already being offered.
Monika Bansal had booked an ultra-luxury apartment worth over Rs. 6.8 crore in Bengaluru's Whitefield area in 2015 in the Windmills of Your Mind project. Possession was scheduled for October 2016. However, delays pushed the handover date to 2017. In February 2018, the developer Total Environment informed Bansal that the OC had been received. However, the commission noted that possession was not offered until 2020, over three and a half years after receiving the OC in 2018.
In 2019, Bansal filed a complaint with NCDRC as possession was delayed even after receiving the OC. The developer argued that the OC had been received so there was "no question of a refund". It added that Bansal was obliged to accept possession when it was offered in 2020 with the customizations requested by the buyer.
Rejecting the developer's claims, NCDRC ruled that builders obtaining OCs is irrelevant if possession is not offered within the agreed timeline. The developer claimed delays were due to Bansal's repeated requests for interior modifications and late installment payments. The developer offered compensation for delays over six months, but was strictly against a full refund.
However, NCDRC noted the developer's own admission that there were no delays in handing over possession. The commission refuted all of the developer's arguments and agreed possession was delayed over three and a half years. Since Bansal had paid over 90% of the cost, NCDRC ruled customization requests did not justify over three years of delay.
The order stated that the date of receiving the OC is irrelevant to homebuyers if possession is not offered accordingly. The prime concern for buyers is the safety of their investment. Citing Supreme Court rulings, NCDRC held buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. It ordered the developer to fully refund the amount deposited by Bansal within two months, with 9% annual interest till refund.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
