A consumer court in Mumbai has directed a real estate developer to refund Rs 45.45 lakh, along with 9 per cent annual interest, to a homebuyer over prolonged delay in handing over possession of a flat, observing that buyers cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for their homes.
In an order delivered earlier this month, the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Mumbai Suburban) held Soundlines Eco Homes and its partners responsible for deficiency in service, noting that the developer had failed to provide any explanation for the delay.
The commission directed the builder and its partners to refund Rs 45,45,268 with interest at 9 per cent per annum, calculated from December 31, 2016, the originally promised date of possession.
It also awarded Rs 50,000 towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 25,000 as litigation costs. The amounts are to be paid within 45 days.
Possession delayed for nearly a decade
According to the complaint, the homebuyer, a resident of Mulund, had booked a flat in the 'Sound Delight' residential project at Aashte village near Panvel in August 2015.
The flat was priced at Rs 50.52 lakh, and the developer had promised to hand over possession by December 31, 2016.
The complainant paid Rs 45.45 lakh towards the property, besides stamp duty and registration charges. However, the developer repeatedly extended the possession deadline without delivering the flat.
The complaint stated that the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) website eventually reflected a revised possession deadline extending to September 2026.
Buyer alleges denial of site inspection
Apart from the delay, the complainant raised several allegations concerning the developer's conduct and changes to the residential project.
He alleged that the builder demanded further payments without providing an architect's certificate establishing the actual progress of construction.
The complainant also claimed that he was prevented from inspecting the construction site and that several amenities originally promised to buyers, including a clubhouse and an amphitheatre, had been removed from the project.
The commission observed that the builder had failed to explain the delay in handing over possession and held that the buyer was entitled to withdraw from the transaction and seek a refund.
Housing loan interest claim rejected
While allowing the refund and compensation claims, the commission rejected the complainant's demand for reimbursement of Rs 5.23 lakh paid as interest on his housing loan.
The commission relied on the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) vs Anupam Garg, observing that the complainant had independently obtained the housing loan.
It held that the amount paid towards loan interest could not be recovered from the developer under the circumstances of the case.
Order passed in builder's absence
The proceedings were conducted ex parte after Soundlines Eco Homes and its partners failed to appear before the consumer commission.
Based on the complainant's submissions and the material placed on record, the commission concluded that the unexplained delay constituted deficiency in service.
The ruling reaffirmed that a developer's repeated extension of possession deadlines does not require a homebuyer to remain bound to a property transaction indefinitely, particularly when the promised flat has not been delivered.