Last Updated:
The State Consumer Commission reportedly ruled that homebuyers can claim compensation for deficiencies in service even after property possession or completion of the conveyance deed
The complainant found the flat to be in a dilapidated condition, necessitating substantial renovation expenses. (Representative/Shutterstock)
In a significant development, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi issued an important judgment in favour of homebuyers. The commission overturned the District Commission’s decision, which had dismissed a woman’s complaint solely because she was not a consumer at the time of filing. The State Consumer Commission ruled that an individual has the right to seek compensation and claim damages for deficient services from the builder or developer.
According to media reports, the State Consumer Commission stated, “Compensation can be sought for deficiency in services even after taking possession of the property or completion of the conveyance deed.”
The bench comprising State Commission Chairperson Justice Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki allowed the appeal of the applicant, Madhubala. Furthermore, the Commission set aside the District Consumer Commission’s decision on her complaint dated February 28, 2020.
The appellant, a resident of Indrapuri, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. She stated that a flat had been allotted in her husband’s name in 1996. However, following his demise, she encountered significant challenges in obtaining possession of the property. Upon finally gaining possession in 2019, she found the flat to be in a dilapidated condition, necessitating substantial renovation expenses. To recover these losses, she filed a case with the Consumer Commission, seeking compensation of Rs 20 lakh.
The State Consumer Commission addressed the case which required it to determine whether the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the District Commission had erred in dismissing her appeal.
In its decision, the State Commission ruled that the District Commission incorrectly rejected the appellant’s complaint. The District Commission’s basis for dismissal was that the appellant, having taken possession of the flat, was no longer a consumer. The State Commission deemed this erroneous and remanded the case to the District Consumer Commission for further proceedings.
