Hi Welcome You can highlight texts in any article and it becomes audio news that you can hear
  • Tue. Jun 30th, 2026

30-yr delay in possession: Wins refund with 12% int

30-yr delay in possession: Wins refund with 12% int

Over three decades ago in 1995, a Mumbai-based resident had paid a sum of Rs 25 lakh to purchase 11 commercial units in a complex located at Jogeshwari (West). The buyer had bought the units to carry on his own business and earn his livelihood through self-employment. However, the builder never started the construction, let alone deliver the booked units.

Despite accepting the consideration amount, the builder failed to even start the construction of the project, failing to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the subject galas. Alleging that the builder committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed a consumer complaint.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has now ruled in his favour, holding the developer liable for deficiency in service.

ALSO READ | Homebuyer paid for a flat in a Delhi housing society in 2003, got delayed possession, sought compensation for delay; SC defends his right

Rs 25 lakh paid for 11 commercial units, no delivery yet: Buyer fights against builder
Over 30 years ago in 1995, Amish Anantrai Modi had booked some shops in a project for a total consideration of Rs 25 lakh. In his complaint, the buyer said that he needed suitable commercial premises to expand his existing business activities and earn his livelihood by means of self-employment.

A developer launched and developed a commercial project and offered units therein to prospective purchasers. Being induced by the representations and assurances given by the builder regarding the development of the project and delivery of possession within the stipulated period, Amish Modi booked 11 galas/units.

He further claimed to have paid the token amount in cash, which was “acknowledged by the opposite party (builder) in their letter of Allotment and balance consideration was paid by the complainant from the
Read More

Leave a Reply

Click to listen highlighted text!