The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised a builder for a three-year delay in handing over possession of a flat to a Mohali-based couple.

The commission directed the firm, Sushma Buildtech Limited, Chandigarh, to pay 9% interest to the complainant on the deposited amount (over ₹28 lakh) with effect from the promised date of possession, September 26, 2018,till September 21, 2021, the date when the possession was handed over.

The firm and its two directors have also been directed to pay ₹10,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, and ₹10,000 as costs of litigation.

Ranjit Kumar and his wife Sangeeta Singh of Gazipur village in Dhakauli, Mohali, had filed a case against the firm and its two directors. The couple had booked a flat in a project being developed by the firm in Zirakpur and were allotted a unit in the first floor of Tower-H, measuring 1,860 square feet, with basic sale price of ₹25.50 lakh.

In all, they paid over ₹28 lakh and according to the agreement, the builders were to deliver possession of the unit in September 2018. However, the possession was delayed.

In the complaint, it was alleged that there were many deficiencies in the construction, which the complainants requested to be removed and paid the due amount along with charges for maintenance. They also requested the builder to pay interest due to delayed offer of possession.

The complainants alleged that despite repeated requests, the amount was not paid. Alleging this was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the couple moved the consumer commission.

The builder responded that the unit was agreed to be delivered in September 2018 subject to force majeure conditions, as laid down in the agreement. The complainants were offered possession in August 2019 and were satisfied by the quality and construction, and accepted the offer, they said, denying any deficiency.

The commission observed: “The opposition parties have failed to prove on record any force majeure circumstances owing to which the possession of the unit in question was delayed by them. Thus in our opinion certainly there is deficiency on the part of the ops and they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.”