The complaint (CC/959/2018) was filed by Mr. Amarjit Singh Sethi and Smt. Raminder Kaur Sethi under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The couple had booked two flats in 2014 — Flat No. 002 (Ground Floor, D-Wing, 775 sq.ft.) and Flat No. 101 (1st Floor, D-Wing, 630 sq.ft.) — for a total consideration of ₹35,12,500. An allotment letter was issued on 1 April 2014. The complainants claimed they paid the full amount through cheque, cash and instalments. Unregistered sale agreements were executed on 2 August 2016, and car parking allotment letters were also issued later. Despite this, the builders neither registered the agreements, obtained the Occupation Certificate, nor handed over possession.

The Opposite Parties included Leo Fortune Infra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the partnership firm M/s Saomya Fortune Infra Ventures, Saomya Infra Pvt. Ltd., and several of their directors. The developers raised multiple defences. They claimed the complainants were investors and not consumers, that the complaint was barred by limitation, that full payment had not been received, and that internal partnership disputes and alleged unauthorised cash collections by some directors absolved the other parties of liability. They also pointed to pending criminal cases and undertakings given in criminal proceedings.

The Commission, comprising Presiding Member Ms. Poonam Maharshi and Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, rejected all these contentions in its judgment dated 4 August 2026.

On the question of consumer status, the Commission held that booking two residential flats by a husband and wife for family living requirements does not convert the transaction into a commercial investment. The burden of proving commercial purpose lies on the developer, and the Opposite Parties failed to discharge it. The complainants were held to be bona fide consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

On limitation, the Commission ruled that the complaint was within time. In housing construction cases, the failure to complete the project, obtain Occupation Certificate, execute a registered agreement under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), and hand over peaceful possession constitutes a continuous and recurring cause of action. As long as the builder retains the homebuyer’s money without fulfilling these obligations, limitation does not expire.

On the core issue of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission found the Opposite Parties guilty. Having accepted substantial consideration, they defaulted on their primary statutory duty under Section 4 of MOFA to execute and register formal agreements for sale. They also failed to complete construction, obtain the Occupation Certificate, and deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. The Commission firmly rejected the attempt to hide behind internal partnership disputes, alleged fund misappropriation, or criminal litigation among the directors. It held that internal friction between partners or directors of a joint venture cannot be used as a shield to deprive a genuine homebuyer of their rights. A consumer who has performed their part of the contract cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to corporate irregularities among the developers.

Holding all Opposite Parties (Nos. 1 to 9) jointly and severally liable, the Commission passed the following directions:

1. The Opposite Parties shall execute and register individual Sale Agreements for both Flat No. 002 (775 sq.ft.) and Flat No. 101 (630 sq.ft.), D-Wing, Fortune Belleza, along with the two allotted car parking spaces, in favour of the complainants within one month from the date of the order.
2. The Opposite Parties shall obtain the Occupation Certificate from the competent authority and hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of both flats upon receipt of any balance contractual consideration, if applicable.
3. In the alternative, at the option of the complainants, if the Opposite Parties fail or are unable to hand over legal possession with Occupation Certificate, they shall jointly and severally refund the entire amount of ₹35,12,500 along with interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of payment until realisation.
4. The Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally pay ₹1,00,000 to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment, delay and financial strain.
5. The Opposite Parties shall also pay ₹50,000 towards legal costs.

The order reinforces two important principles for homebuyers in Maharashtra. First, internal disputes among developers or partners cannot be used as an excuse to deny possession or refund. Second, the continuous cause of action doctrine continues to protect buyers in cases of prolonged delay, non-registration of agreements and non-delivery of possession under MOFA.

This judgment is a clear message that once money is accepted from a homebuyer, the responsibility to deliver a completed, legally transferrable flat rests jointly and severally on the company, the partnership firm and the directors involved.

Also Read: Builders Took ₹90 Lakh, Sold Flat to Someone Else — Consumer Commission Orders ₹1.05 Crore Refund

The post Homebuyers Win Big: Commission Orders Flats or 12% Refund + ₹1 Lakh for Mental Harassment appeared first on Square Feat India.