NCDRC holds Sushma Buildtech Liable for deficiency in service
Real Estate

NCDRC holds Sushma Buildtech Liable for deficiency in service

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the presidency of AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that builders cannot compel buyers to accept possession of property after significant delays. The commission affirmed the buyer's right to either accept delayed possession or seek appropriate compensation. The complainant had booked a flat with Sushma Buildtech, and a Flat Buyers Agreement was executed specifying possession within 30 months (24 months plus a 6-month grace period). Despite receiving 97% of the sale price, the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. Dissatisfied with the delay, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the Punjab State Commission, seeking relief.

The State Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the builder to compensate at the rate of ?5 per sq. ft. per month of the flat's super area from the stipulated delivery date until possession, along with 6% annual simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 5.43. Additionally, litigation costs of Rs 65,000 were awarded. Aggrieved by this decision, the builder appealed to the National Commission. The builder contended that the complaint lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that the complainants, who owned another property and purchased the flat for speculative purposes, did not qualify as 'consumers' under the law. The builder denied any service deficiency, citing project development challenges such as labour shortages, sand scarcity, and demonetization. They maintained that all necessary approvals were in place as stipulated in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. The NCDRC observed that the complainants had paid Rs 6.42 million towards the flat, as evidenced by receipts. Despite fulfilling their financial obligations, the builder failed to meet the possession deadline agreed upon in the contract. Emphasising the rights of homebuyers, the commission referenced precedents such as Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan, affirming that buyers have the right to seek compensation for possession delays.

Modifying the State Commission's order, the National Commission directed the builder to pay 6% simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 6.42 million from the date the flat was due for possession until delivery. Additionally, Rs 100,000 was awarded to the complainants for litigation expenses.

(Source: Live Law)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the presidency of AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that builders cannot compel buyers to accept possession of property after significant delays. The commission affirmed the buyer's right to either accept delayed possession or seek appropriate compensation. The complainant had booked a flat with Sushma Buildtech, and a Flat Buyers Agreement was executed specifying possession within 30 months (24 months plus a 6-month grace period). Despite receiving 97% of the sale price, the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. Dissatisfied with the delay, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the Punjab State Commission, seeking relief. The State Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the builder to compensate at the rate of ?5 per sq. ft. per month of the flat's super area from the stipulated delivery date until possession, along with 6% annual simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 5.43. Additionally, litigation costs of Rs 65,000 were awarded. Aggrieved by this decision, the builder appealed to the National Commission. The builder contended that the complaint lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that the complainants, who owned another property and purchased the flat for speculative purposes, did not qualify as 'consumers' under the law. The builder denied any service deficiency, citing project development challenges such as labour shortages, sand scarcity, and demonetization. They maintained that all necessary approvals were in place as stipulated in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. The NCDRC observed that the complainants had paid Rs 6.42 million towards the flat, as evidenced by receipts. Despite fulfilling their financial obligations, the builder failed to meet the possession deadline agreed upon in the contract. Emphasising the rights of homebuyers, the commission referenced precedents such as Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan, affirming that buyers have the right to seek compensation for possession delays. Modifying the State Commission's order, the National Commission directed the builder to pay 6% simple interest on the deposited amount of Rs 6.42 million from the date the flat was due for possession until delivery. Additionally, Rs 100,000 was awarded to the complainants for litigation expenses. (Source: Live Law)

Related Stories

Gold Stories

Next Story
Resources

Schindler named among Forbes’ World’s Best Employers 2026

Schindler has been named among Forbes’ World’s Best Employers 2026, a global ranking recognising companies for their workplace environments.Compiled by Forbes in partnership with Statista, the ranking is based on independent employee feedback, including whether employees would recommend their organisation to friends and family.The company said the recognition reflected its focus on creating a workplace where employees can develop their expertise and build careers. ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

India needs an export-execution mindset: Vishesh Jain

Interview with Vishesh Jain, Founder & CEO, EximpleWhat gaps in India’s global trade ecosystem led you to build Eximple, and what problem did you see businesses struggling with most?Eximple came out of a problem that all three founders had seen from different choke points in the trade ecosystem. India has millions of MSMEs and manufacturers, and many of them can make products that are genuinely competitive on quality. Yet only a small fraction is able to build meaningful international businesses. In our experience, the gap is usually not manufacturing capability; it is the ability to exe..

Next Story
Building Material

Nuvoco reports 13.5% revenue growth in Q2 FY27

Nuvoco Vistas Corp. Ltd. reported consolidated revenue of Rs 27.9 billion for Q2 FY27, up 13.5% year on year. Cement sales volume rose 9% to 4.7 million tonnes (MMT), while EBITDA increased 11% to Rs 4.11 billion.The company said it began its cement operations in 2014 with a 2.3 MMT per annum (MMTPA) operation at Nimbol. It now aims to reach 35 MMTPA of cement capacity by FY28, nearly 15 times its initial capacity. Its portfolio spans cement, ready-mix concrete and modern building materials.On sustainability and cost efficiency, Nuvoco partnered with CleanMax for a 46.4 MW wind-solar hybrid re..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

SPECIAL OFFER
QR Code