10-year delay in handing over plot costs Mohali developer

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has awarded a New Delhi resident ₹1 lakh in compensation for a builder’s 10-year delay in handing over possession of a plot in Mohali.
Additionally, the commission has directed the two opposite parties, Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, along with its authorised signatory based in Mohali, to refund ₹44,78,750 with 9% interest per annum from the respective dates of deposit. They are also required to pay the complainant ₹10,000 as litigation costs.
Rajesh Jain had filed a case against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, its chairman, vice-chairman, the authorised signatory based in Mohali and M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, Mohali.
Jain alleged that the company had not obtained a completion certificate and even after a lapse of more than 10 years failed to hand over possession of a plot despite repeated requests.
As per the complainant, he paid ₹12.40 lakh to book a 250 square yards plot in the company’s project Ansal Golf Links, Mohali, and was issued an offer of allotment in January 2011.
As per the agreement, Plot Number 556 with a total sale consideration of ₹31 lakh was allotted.
Jain alleged that the agreement did not contain any timeline stipulating the time frame within which possession will be offered by the company. He had already paid ₹44,78,750 and since April 2015, when he made the last payment for the plot, he had been running from pillar to post, but did not get possession of the land even 10 years after receiving the allotment letter.
Alleging the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Jain approached the consumer commission.
The opposite parties said the possession of the plot in question was offered on January 18, 2013, and was acknowledged by the complainant without any kind of objection or protest. They alleged delay on his part in taking physical possession and deposit balance sale consideration.
They said all basic amenities were in place where the plot in question was situated and various families were residing in the township. They denied all other allegations made in the complaint.
However, the commission cited the national consumer commission’s order, as per which the builder cannot withhold the amount deposited by the allottee and if it is so, there was continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee to file a complaint seeking a refund of the said amount.