A recent first appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has reinforced the importance of timely delivery of possession and obtaining necessary occupancy certificates in real estate transactions. The case centered on a builder's failure to adhere to agreed timelines and provide a valid occupancy certificate, leading to a refund order in favor of the complainant.

The complainant had booked a flat in a project by Proview Construction Ltd. in 2008, with possession promised within 24 months. Despite significant payments, possession was offered in 2013 without an occupancy certificate. The complainant faced further delays and demands for additional charges, prompting them to file a consumer complaint seeking a refund.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the builder to refund the entire amount paid, along with interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs. The commission emphasized the builder's failure to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe and the lack of a valid occupancy certificate.

The builder challenged the state commission's order, arguing that possession was offered, and the delay was partly due to the complainant's non-payment of dues. However, the NCDRC upheld the state commission's decision, emphasizing the following key points:

Delay in Possession: The NCDRC acknowledged the undisputed delay in handing over possession of the flat, which constituted a deficiency in service.

Lack of Occupancy Certificate: The absence of a valid occupancy certificate at the time of offering possession was deemed a significant deficiency, rendering the offer invalid.

Right to Refund: Citing numerous Supreme Court and NCDRC precedents, the NCDRC affirmed the complainant's right to seek a refund with interest and compensation in cases of significant delays and lack of necessary certificates.

One-Sided Agreements: The NCDRC reiterated that contractual terms that are one-sided and unfair to the buyer cannot be enforced.

Reliance on Precedents: The NCDRC relied on judgments such as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan, Samruddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, Debashis Sinha & Ors. Vs. M/s. R.N.R. Enterprise Rep. by its Proprietor/ Chairman, Kolkata, and Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority to reinforce the importance of obtaining occupancy certificates and the buyer's right to seek refunds in cases of delay.

Compensation: The NCDRC found the compensation awarded by the state commission to be reasonable, despite acknowledging that it was verging to sub-optimal, and declined to interfere with it, as the complainant did not file any appeal for enhancement.

The NCDRC dismissed the builder's appeal, upholding the state commission's order. No costs were awarded.

This case serves as a crucial reminder for builders to adhere to agreed timelines and obtain necessary occupancy certificates before offering possession. It reinforces the rights of homebuyers to seek refunds and compensation in cases of significant delays and deficiencies in service. The decision underscores the importance of upholding consumer rights and ensuring transparency in real estate transactions.