A landmark ruling by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, clarifies that when buyers voluntarily agree to a revised possession date in a subsequent agreement, they are legally bound by it and cannot later claim delay compensation from the original date. This decision reinforces the sanctity of mutual contractual modifications in real estate transactions and sets a clear precedent for consumer forums across India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainants, a father and son residing in Chandigarh, purchased a residential flat in the "LA PARISIAN" project by M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Private Limited. Relying on the developer’s assurance of possession by March 2023, they paid an initial amount of ₹3,00,000 in September 2021 and executed an Agreement for Sale dated 25.10.2021, which fixed 31.03.2023 as the possession date. The total sale consideration was ₹67,07,500, inclusive of GST.
Procedural History
- September 2021: Complainant No.1 booked the flat and paid ₹3,00,000; Agreement for Sale dated 25.10.2021 executed.
- December 2022: Developer induced complainants to add Complainant No.2 as joint allottee and collected ₹25,665 as endorsement fee.
- January 2023: A new Agreement for Sale dated 10.01.2023 was executed, revising the possession date to 31.12.2023. Complainants signed without objection.
- March 2023: Possession not delivered; complainants continued paying EMIs and additional installments.
- September 2024: Developer issued offer of possession, demanding additional charges and withholding completion/occupation certificates.
- February 2025: Complainants took physical possession without protest.
- November 2024: Complaint filed before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and delay.
Relief Sought
The complainants sought: (i) delivery of possession with completion and occupation certificates; (ii) interest at 12% p.a. from 31.03.2023 till actual possession; (iii) ₹5,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment; and (iv) ₹75,000 for litigation expenses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a revised possession date in a subsequent Agreement for Sale, mutually executed by the buyer and builder, supersedes the original date in the first agreement, and whether the buyer can claim delay compensation from the earlier date despite having accepted the revised term.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The complainants contended that the initial agreement dated 25.10.2021 remained binding and that the revised date of 31.12.2023 was imposed through fraudulent inducement. They argued that the addition of Complainant No.2 as joint allottee was a tactic to extract additional fees, and that the revised agreement was not truly voluntary. They relied on DLF Homes Panchkula v. Himanshu Arora to assert their right to interest from the original date of 31.03.2023.
For the Respondent
The developer argued that the subsequent agreement dated 10.01.2023 was a mutual novation of the prior contract, signed with full knowledge and consent. They produced the signed agreement and payment records to show that complainants continued making payments without protest. They cited Kavit Ahuja v. Shipra Estates to rebut the claim of non-consumer status and relied on Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta to argue that delay compensation must be calculated from the last agreed date.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission conducted a rigorous analysis of contractual principles and conduct-based evidence. It emphasized that mutual consent is the cornerstone of contract modification. The revised Agreement for Sale dated 10.01.2023 was not a unilateral imposition but a document signed by both parties, with the complainants’ names appearing as joint allottees. The Commission noted the absence of any contemporaneous objection, protest, or correspondence challenging the revised date - even after the complainants made further payments totaling over ₹43 lakh.
"The complainants cannot be presumed to have signed the said agreement in ignorance of its contents. There is nothing on record to show that the complainants raised any objection, protest or reservation either at the time of execution of the subsequent agreement or immediately thereafter."
The Court applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, holding that a party cannot benefit from a contract while rejecting its burdens. By accepting the inclusion of a joint allottee and continuing payments under the revised terms, the complainants had affirmed the new possession date. The earlier date of 31.03.2023 was therefore legally superseded.
The Commission further held that GST forms part of the total consideration and cannot be excluded from interest calculations. Term 1.2 of the agreement explicitly stated the price was inclusive of GST, making it inseparable from the contractual obligation. The developer’s argument that GST was remitted to the government was irrelevant - the contractual liability remained between the parties.
The Court also affirmed that unconditional acceptance of possession extinguishes claims for delay beyond the agreed date. The possession certificate signed on 07.02.2025 contained no reservations, confirming the complainants’ satisfaction with the unit’s condition.
The Verdict
The complainants won on partial relief. The Court held that the revised possession date of 31.12.2023 governed the contractual timeline, and therefore, interest could only be computed from that date. The developer was directed to pay 9% p.a. interest on the entire amount paid (including GST) from 31.12.2023 to 07.02.2025, along with ₹75,000 for mental harassment and ₹35,000 for litigation costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revised Agreements Bind Buyers
- Practitioners must advise clients that signing a revised agreement with a new possession date waives rights to claim delay from the original date.
- Any claim of coercion or fraud must be substantiated with contemporaneous evidence - silence and continued payment will be construed as acceptance.
GST Cannot Be Excluded from Interest Calculations
- Builders cannot evade interest liability by segregating GST from the total consideration.
- If the agreement states the price is "inclusive of GST," the entire amount is subject to compensation for delay.
Unconditional Possession Acceptance Bars Delay Claims
-
Buyers who take possession without protest or reservation forfeit claims for delay beyond the agreed date.
-
Practitioners should document possession handover with signed certificates to prevent future disputes.
-
Always verify whether a revised agreement was signed voluntarily and whether payments continued under its terms.
-
Never rely on an initial agreement if a subsequent one exists - courts will enforce the latest mutual understanding.
-
In litigation, emphasize the absence of protest or objection as decisive evidence of consent.
