NEW DELHI: A Delhi consumer commission, on July 6, ordered a developer to refund Rs 19.73 lakh to an Indian Air Force officer after finding that the company never signed a formal agreement with him despite collecting the money over several years. The commission held that as there was no signed agreement, there was nothing binding the buyer to the developer’s terms on possession dates or payment interest, and he could not be made to wait indefinitely for a home.Why did the IAF officer approach the consumer commission?As per the order, Air Commodore Pradip Kumar Routa and his wife, Anupurna Routa, booked two plots in a housing project advertised by Canopy Granviz Developers in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. They paid a total of Rs 19,73,780 for both the plots. They were promised possession within 24 months of allotment, that is, by November 2015.But possession never came. Since Routa was in the defence services and often posted far away, he couldn’t visit the site regularly. When he finally went there in February 2019, he allegedly found the project was nowhere close to complete. There was no clubhouse, no shopping complex, and not even a proper road connecting it to the highway — all things that had been promised at the time of booking.He then asked the developer to either shift him to another project or return his money. The developer refused, claiming construction was already complete, and instead asked him to pay his remaining dues. When nothing was resolved, he sent a legal notice and finally moved the consumer commission.The developer, defending itself, argued that Routa wasn’t really a consumer under the law since he had booked two plots — suggesting this was an investment, not a home purchase. It also claimed it had offered him possession three times, in 2017 and 2018, but he failed to pay his dues or complete the paperwork for the sale deed.No signed agreement, no binding terms: What the commission saidThe bench comprising President Monika A Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal first rejected the developer’s claim that the complainant wasn’t a genuine consumer.Relying on a 2026 Supreme Court ruling on this exact question, the commission noted that booking more than one unit does not automatically make a purchase commercial.“The determinative question is whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose behind purchasing the flat was to facilitate profit generation through commercial activity, and whether there exists a close and direct nexus between the purchase and such profit-generating activity. The respondents have not placed any cogent material on record to establish such nexus. The mere factum of leasing out the flat does not, by itself, demonstrate that the appellants purchased the property with the dominant purpose of engaging in commercial activity,” the commission noted.The commission also found that although the developer had issued an allotment letter back in 2013, no signed plot buyer’s agreement was ever executed between the two sides, which meaning there was no binding contract on the possession date, payment schedule, or interest rate.“It is further noted that though the allotment letter is dated 2013 however there is no signed plot buyers agreement between the parties till date accordingly, there are no detailed terms and conditions agreed to between the parties,” it further observed.In view of the absence of a binding agreement, the commission concluded that the appropriate relief was to order a refund of the amount paid by the complainant along with interest.“In the absence of a signed agreement between the parties relating to the date of possession or Development Link Plan or the rate of interest chargeable by the OP or the complainant this commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.19,73,780 with interest 9 percent within three months from the date of the pronouncement of the order failing which the interest payable by the OP will be 12 percent p.a. till realization. complainant is not found entitled to any other relief,” the bench added.The commission, however, turned down the complainant’s separate claims for Rs 5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and Rs 51,000 towards litigation costs, holding that the complainant was “not found entitled to any other relief.”
