Homebuyers can seek relief for delay after possession: Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Taking possession of a flat would not bar homebuyers from raising complaints against real estate companies for deficiency in services. Supreme Court has held that homebuyers can approach consumer forums against developers to seek compensation for delayed possession even after taking custody of the flat. The SC set aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held that ahomebuyer ceases to be a consumer after taking possession of the flat and could not seek compensation for delay. SC also held that the arbitration clause in homebuyer-real estate company agreement would not block the former from approaching the consumer forum to raise grievances. Twenty-two years after a homebuyer got possession of his flat housing project in Dwarka in NCR, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana allowed his plea to seek compensation for delay in handing over the flat. It said the NCDRC’s reasoning “cannot be sustained”.“The appellant’s complaint was not for delivery of possession simpliciter. His grievance was that there had been delay in handing over possession of the flat and that he was entitled to compensation for such delay. A claim for compensation for delayed possession necessarily arises from the period prior to the actual delivery of possession. The subsequent receipt of possession cannot, by itself, extinguish the right of the allottee to seek adjudication of a claim for compensation for the alleged delay,“ the bench said. The bench revived the 2005 complaint filed by the homebuyer before the district consumer forum and asked it to decide within a year whether there was any delay. It also asked the forum to decide whether such delay was attributable to the respondent, whether the appellant had accepted possession unconditionally, and whether any compensation is payable. “The claim of the appellant for compensation on account of alleged delay in handing over possession has neither been accepted nor rejected after evidence. Equally, the defence of the respondent society has also not been examined on merits. These issues could not have been concluded at the threshold by holding that the appellant ceased to be a consumer merely because possession had been delivered before the complaint was filed. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this court to record any finding on the factual controversy between the parties,” the bench said. Adjudicating on what should be given primacy – arbitration clause in agreement or Consumer Protection Act – the bench said the 1986 Act creates a special and additional remedy for consumers and the jurisdiction so conferred could not be displaced merely by reference to an arbitration agreement between the parties. “Once that mechanism is validly invoked and the complaint is admitted, the consumer cannot be driven out of that forum merely because the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. A private contractual clause cannot be permitted to defeat the continued operation of a statutory remedy which Parliament has expressly made additional to other remedies under Section 3 of the 1986 Act,” it said.Get the latest India news and live updates. Download the TOI App.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosMaharashtra Govt Clears Ujjwal Nikam As Special Prosecutor In Ketan Agarwal Murder Case?Kejriwal Alleges Massive Embezzlement In Ayodhya Ram Mandir Donation RowWhy Did Bangladesh Choose Malaysia And China Before India?Why The Indian Army Still Relies On 60-Year-Old Cheetah, Chetal & Chetak Helicopters In Ladakh?Raut Backs Aaditya Thackeray’s Rise, Hints At Next Leadership In Party After Rebellion | WatchTrichy East Bypoll Buzz: DMK Chief Will MK Stalin Contest To Make Assembly Comeback?Major Anti-Naxal Success: Forces Recover Rs 24 Lakh, Rifles & Explosives From Maoist Dumps In BastarShashi Tharoor Raises Concerns Over Passport Status And Citizenship; Calls For Legal ReformKetan Agarwal Murder Case: Siya Goyal, Chetan Chowdhary Blame Each Other For ConspiracyOperation Amistad: India Airlifts Army Field Hospital, BHISHM Cubes Relief To Venezuela123PhotostoriesFrom sharing a PG with 5-6 girls, quitting her air hostess job due to back injury and facing a financial crisis: When Dipika Kakar spoke about her journeyFIFA World Cup 2026 underdog Cape Verde isn’t just making headlines on the field; where is it and what should travellers know10 baby girl names inspired by ‘legendary women’ in mythology across the world5 traditional things people used to clean utensils before dishwashing liquid existedMom-to-be Samantha Ruth Prabhu’s pink saree glow-up is the only fashion fairytale we’re here forRelationship lessons to take from Kajol and Ajay DevgnStunning pictures of Abu Dhabi’s Dar al Funoon ‘House of the Arts’Love quote of the day by Samantha Ruth Prabhu: ‘If you look for someone else to complete you, then it won’t go well’Monsoon Special: 9 deep-fried vegetarian Bengali snacks to enjoy with chaiYou share the bed, the house, but still feel empty? This silent syndrome could be wrecking your love life123Hot PicksIndia vs IrelandShamirpet TahsildarIndia Bullet trainFIFA world cup 2026India US Trade dealDelhi rape-murderMumbai local murderBrittany MahomesKetan Agarwal MurderTop TrendingDoug MartinShreyas IyerIndian Citizenship document proofFIFA World Cup 2026KEAM Rank List 2026Mumba Local Train MurderMEA PassportNandani BosmiyaMK StalinMumbai Local Train News
NEW DELHI: Taking possession of a flat would not bar homebuyers from raising complaints against real estate companies for deficiency in services. Supreme Court has held that homebuyers can approach consumer forums against developers to seek compensation for delayed possession even after taking custody of the flat. The SC set aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held that ahomebuyer ceases to be a consumer after taking possession of the flat and could not seek compensation for delay. SC also held that the arbitration clause in homebuyer-real estate company agreement would not block the former from approaching the consumer forum to raise grievances. Twenty-two years after a homebuyer got possession of his flat housing project in Dwarka in NCR, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana allowed his plea to seek compensation for delay in handing over the flat. It said the NCDRC’s reasoning “cannot be sustained”.“The appellant’s complaint was not for delivery of possession simpliciter. His grievance was that there had been delay in handing over possession of the flat and that he was entitled to compensation for such delay. A claim for compensation for delayed possession necessarily arises from the period prior to the actual delivery of possession. The subsequent receipt of possession cannot, by itself, extinguish the right of the allottee to seek adjudication of a claim for compensation for the alleged delay,“ the bench said. The bench revived the 2005 complaint filed by the homebuyer before the district consumer forum and asked it to decide within a year whether there was any delay. It also asked the forum to decide whether such delay was attributable to the respondent, whether the appellant had accepted possession unconditionally, and whether any compensation is payable. “The claim of the appellant for compensation on account of alleged delay in handing over possession has neither been accepted nor rejected after evidence. Equally, the defence of the respondent society has also not been examined on merits. These issues could not have been concluded at the threshold by holding that the appellant ceased to be a consumer merely because possession had been delivered before the complaint was filed. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this court to record any finding on the factual controversy between the parties,” the bench said. Adjudicating on what should be given primacy – arbitration clause in agreement or Consumer Protection Act – the bench said the 1986 Act creates a special and additional remedy for consumers and the jurisdiction so conferred could not be displaced merely by reference to an arbitration agreement between the parties. “Once that mechanism is validly invoked and the complaint is admitted, the consumer cannot be driven out of that forum merely because the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. A private contractual clause cannot be permitted to defeat the continued operation of a statutory remedy which Parliament has expressly made additional to other remedies under Section 3 of the 1986 Act,” it said.
