National consumer commission orders builder to pay Rs 48 lakh for undelivered Rs 8 lakh flat

MUMBAI: The national consumer commission has ordered a builder to pay a compensation of Rs 47.6 lakh to a Navi Mumbai man in lieu of the Rs 8.2 lakh that he had paid for a 1000-sq-foot flat 25 years ago, but never received possession of. The commission on Friday said that the flat buyer, R K Singhal, was not only entitled to the 11% interest as awarded by the state consumer commission in 2015 (Rs 39.4 lakh) but also the principal amount of Rs 8.2 lakh.

“The appellant (Singhal) would be entitled to get Rs 47.6 lakh. The opposite party (Sudradh Constructions Pvt Ltd) is directed to pay this amount within a period of 45 days, failing which this amount will attract an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment,” the commission said.

Singhal moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against Sudradh Constructions Pvt Ltd in 2015 after he was aggrieved with the state commission’s order.


While the state commission had granted him the compensation, it did not accept his plea to take possession of the flat which was constructed in 2014.

The national commission agreed with the state commission’s ruling that the man was not entitled to the flat as he had made that demand several years after he had filed the complaint in 2001.

In the 2001 complaint made before the state commission, Singhal had only sought a refund of the amount he had paid.

He amended his complaint only at the final stage in June 2015, wanting to take possession of the flat.

The national commission said that when Singhal’s amendment plea was allowed, the builder should have also been given a chance to file a revised written statement.

“In the present case, nothing of this sort has been ordered by the state commission. Thus, clearly the prayers in the amended complaint cannot be considered,” it observed.

The national commission had also pointed out that despite the building’s completion, even in 2015 the occupation certificate was delayed due to Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulation violations.