Mohali flat buyers get relief from Supreme Court

Indian Express

a day ago

In a key ruling that balances homebuyer rights and builder liability, the Supreme Court has upheld a refund with 8% compounded interest to two buyers who pulled out of a delayed Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) housing project, but turned down their plea to recover the home loan interest they had paid.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the ruling last week in a dispute stemming from GMADA's 'Purab Premium Apartments' project in Sector 88, Mohali. The buyers, Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar, had booked 2-BHK flats in 2012 and deposited ₹50.46 lakh and ₹41.29 lakh, respectively. They were promised possession by May 2015 under a Letter of Intent (LOI), which also assured a refund with 8% interest in case of delay.
Citing slow progress and major deviations from the promised layout and amenities, the buyers sought refunds in 2016. When GMADA resisted, they moved the Punjab State Consumer Commission, which in 2018 ordered GMADA to return their money with 8% interest, ₹60,000 each for mental harassment, ₹30,000 each in litigation costs, and the interest they had paid on their housing loans. This decision was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2019.
However, GMADA contested the direction to pay for buyers' loan interest in the Supreme Court.
In its verdict, the court reaffirmed that delayed possession entitles buyers to a refund with reasonable interest. 'Where the development authority… does not deliver possession… the allottee is entitled for refund… with reasonable interest,' the bench said, citing its earlier ruling in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank.
The bench also quoted GDA v. Balbir Singh, saying compensation must vary with the facts of the case: 'In cases where monies are being simply returned… the compensation would necessarily have to be higher.'
However, the judges ruled out compensation under multiple heads. Citing DLF Homes Panchkula v. D.S. Dhanda, they said, 'There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages.' Justice Karol observed, 'The 8% interest awarded… is the compensation for being deprived of the investment… No amount of interest on the loan taken by the respondents could have been awarded.'
The court allowed GMADA's appeal in part—striking down the loan interest component but upholding the rest of the relief granted by the consumer commissions. GMADA will not have to deposit any additional sum, and the money already with the State Commission will be disbursed to the buyers.