#refund with interest

The Commission held that a homebuyer's temporary occupation of a substitute flat with express written objection does not constitute acceptance of permanent substitution, preserving the right to refund of the full booking amount (Rs. 53.43 lakh) for the undelivered flat. It awarded staggered interest at 9% pre-occupation and 7% during occupation, plus Rs. 1 lakh costs, payable within 90 days. The ruling protects buyers who occupy alternative units under protest while asserting their original contractual rights.

The Delhi SCDRC held that buying commercial shops for self-employment livelihood is not 'commercial purpose' under CPA 1986, so buyers remain consumers. It ordered a refund of Rs 4.2 lakh with 6-9% interest, Rs 1 lakh mental agony compensation, and Rs 50,000 costs after the builder cancelled bookings under an unproven payment plan.

NCDRC rules that builders failing to deliver possession on time must pay interest on the buyer's paid amount as compensation, not just contractual delay penalties. This strengthens consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, ensuring financial redress beyond mere delay compensation for homebuyers.

Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that buying a single residential plot for personal use-even through a broker-falls under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, entitling buyers to remedies for deficiency in service. This clarifies the scope of consumer rights in real estate transactions, reinforcing protections for individual plot buyers against unfair trade practices.

West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules that unjustified delay in handing over flat possession constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Buyers are entitled to a full refund, 7% interest from the default date, and compensation for mental agony, setting a precedent for real estate consumer disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that payment of the principal IGST refund amount does not discharge the statutory obligation to pay interest under Section 54 of the IGST Act. This clarifies that non-payment of interest constitutes contempt of court where previously ordered, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory refund timelines for exporters and zero-rated suppliers.

The NCDRC ruled that a builder's unilateral reduction of promised open spaces-like lawn area-constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling buyers to full refund with penal interest and compensation. This sets a critical precedent for homebuyers challenging amenity misrepresentation in builder-buyer agreements, reinforcing that contractual promises are legally enforceable, not marketing embellishments.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission ruled that a flat buyer is entitled to a full refund of ₹8.43 lakh with 10% interest from the date of payment, plus ₹2 lakh compensation for mental harassment due to delayed possession. The order underscores that developers cannot evade liability by citing injunctions or incomplete payments when the project itself is illegal or stalled.

NCDRC reinforces that builders failing to deliver possession within contractual timelines must refund homebuyers with interest as stipulated in the agreement. The ruling underscores that deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act includes non-delivery of property, entitling buyers to full refunds with contractual interest, not just simple interest.