AI generated imageNEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Haryana has directed a real estate company to hand over a flat to a 73-year-old man and pay 9 percent annual interest on Rs 19.62 lakh from November 24, 2018, after finding that the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed period. The order was passed on August 17, 2026.What was the dispute over the delayed possession of the flat?According to the commission order, Girdhari was allotted Flat No. C-704 on the seventh floor of Tower-C in Shree Vardhman Green Space, Sector-14, Panchkula Extension-II, on August 26, 2015. The flat had a super built-up area of 730 sq ft and a balcony measuring 100 sq ft. A Flat Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on March 21, 2016, with the basic sale price fixed at Rs 19.62 lakh.The project was advertised under the Haryana government's Affordable Housing Policy, 2013. The advertisement stated that the project would be completed within four years from approval of the building plan or grant of environmental clearance, whichever was later. It also promised no maintenance charges for five years and no EDC, IDC or PLC charges.Girdhari said he had made the required payments to Green Space Infraheights Pvt Ltd and had also taken a housing loan of Rs 17.65 lakh from PNB Housing Finance to pay for the flat. He alleged that the builder failed to hand over possession within the promised period, forcing him to continue bearing the financial burden of the loan while being unable to use the flat.He sought Rs 3 lakh towards income loss, payment of EMIs after May 2019 with 15% interest, Rs 2 lakh for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 55,000 towards litigation expenses.The builder's defence was that Girdhari himself had failed to make timely instalment payments. It relied on several reminder letters issued to him for clearing outstanding amounts and said he was therefore responsible for the delay. It also argued that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected construction activity and relied on the force majeure clause in the agreement.Why did the commission reject the builder's claim that the buyer caused the delay?The President Nagender Singh Kadian, along with members Dr Tripti Pannu and Dr Vijender Singh noted that the builder's own customer ledger showed that Girdhari had already paid the entire basic sale consideration of Rs 19.62 lakh by November 24, 2018. The ledger also showed total payments of Rs 20,47,435.The bench comprising President Nagender Singh Kadian and members Dr Tripti Pannu and Dr Vijender Singh said the builder's own records contradicted its claim that the buyer's failure to make payments had caused the delay.“However, the aforesaid contention of the opposite party does not inspire confidence when examined in the light of its own subsequent record. A document described as “Customer Ledger”, prepared by Green Space Infraheights Private Limited as on 10.05.2022, is available on the record. Though the said document has not been formally exhibited by either party, the same is relevant for adjudication of the controversy and is marked as ‘Annexure JNA’.A perusal of ‘Annexure JNA’ reveals that the complainant had already paid the basic sale consideration of Rs.19,62,000/- by 24.11.2018. The said ledger further reflects total payments of Rs.20,47,435/- made by the complainant to the opposite parties,” the bench said.The commission also considered the buyer's claim that the builder had agreed to bear his housing loan interest until possession. It noted that Girdhari had received several payments from the builder totalling Rs 2,46,855. However, the commission said there was no separate written agreement clearly establishing that the builder had undertaken to pay all future EMIs or interest until possession.The commission then examined the delay in handing over the flat. It said that even if the possession period was calculated from the date of the Flat Buyer's Agreement, possession should have been offered by March 2019.“The opposite parties have sought to justify the delay on the ground that the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown affected the construction activity. We find no merit in this contention. The agreed period for delivery of possession had already expired prior to the commencement of the nationwide lockdown on 25.03.2020. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot take shelter under the COVID-19 pandemic for a delay which had already occurred before the pandemic began,” the commission held.The commission also noted that Girdhari was a senior citizen and had already paid the entire basic sale price before the pandemic. Despite receiving the money, the builder had failed to deliver possession within the agreed period.“It is significant that the complainant had paid the entire basic sale consideration of Rs.19,62,000/- by 24.11.2018, as reflected from Annexure JNA. Despite receipt of the entire basic sale price, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession within the agreed period. The complainant, who is a senior citizen, has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the flat despite making the substantial payment and arranging housing finance for the same.We are, therefore, of the considered view that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties,” the commission noted.The commission held that the prolonged delay amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Since the builder had retained and used the Rs 19.62 lakh paid by the buyer without delivering possession, it held that he was entitled to reasonable interest as compensation for the delay.The commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally complete the remaining construction and development work, if any, and hand over actual, physical and peaceful possession of Flat No. C-704 within 30 days of the order.It directed the builder to pay 9 percent annual interest on Rs 19.62 lakh from November 24, 2018, until the actual delivery of possession.The commission also awarded Rs 2 lakh to Girdhari for mental agony, harassment, financial inconvenience and deficiency in service, besides Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.The builder was directed to inform the complainant within 15 days about any registration charges payable by him, with such charges to be borne by the complainant according to law. All other directions were to be complied with within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.