• Posted by CERC India
  • Posted in

Buyers can seek higher compensation for delayed flat


Govind Paul signed an agreement with Emaar MGF in September 2011 for a property which was to be handed over in 36 months. After a 20-month delay, Paul approached the State Commission of Chandigarh seeking refund of his payment and compensation for the delay. The State Commission ordered refund of Rs. 38.9 lakh at 15% interest, Rs. 3 lakh as compensation and Rs. 25,000 towards costs. The builder appealed to the National Commission.

The National Commission observed that the builder did not offer possession even 23 months after the matter reached the State Commission and “such delay in offering possession cannot be said to be reasonable or normal”.

It ruled that builders can’t hide behind the clause in the builder-buyer agreement to pay Rs. 5 per sq feet per month as compensation for delay in handing over flats for an “unreasonable” period. Buyers have the option to seek higher compensation after taking possession of the property or in addition to the refund sought.


The National Commission directed the builder to pay Rs. 5 lakh compensation to Paul over and above the refund amount and Rs. 50,000 towards costs.

Point of law

Unreasonable delay by builder in giving possession with token compensation cannot continue indefinitely. 

[Source: The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 26 July 2018 on First Appeal No. 402 of 2017]

Did You Know

Weight reduction surgery is not always cosmetic surgery. The insurance company is liable to pay for it when it is performed to avoid health complications which may prove life-threatening for a patient. This was the ruling of the Ahmedabad District Forum in the case of a 64-year-old patient Leena Desai, weighing 102 kg, who underwent bariatric surgery.

Husband can’t use wife’s ATM card: Forum   


Did you know that asking your spouse or close relative/friend to withdraw money from an ATM using your debit card is a violation or rules? That’s what Bengaluru resident Vandana found out. She gave her husband Rajesh Kumar her debit card and PIN to withdraw Rs. 25,000 from a local SBI ATM. The money was debited from her account but the ATM did not release it. According to banking rules, an ATM card is non-transferable and no other person other than the account holder can use it.

Vandana approached the District Forum saying that as she had just given birth and could not move out of home, she had asked her husband to withdraw money for her. The CCTV footage showed Kumar using the machine but no cash being dispensed. However, the bank contended that the cardholder was not seen in the footage. Earlier the banking ombudsman had ruled that sharing the PIN was a violation of rules.


The forum ruled that Vandana should have given a self-cheque or an authorisation letter to her husband for withdrawal of Rs. 25,000 instead of sharing the PIN and making him withdraw the money from an ATM. The Forum dismissed the case.

Point of law 

An ATM card is non-transferable and only the account holder can use it.

[Source: The order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru dated 29 May 2018 on Complaint Case No. 1786/2014]

Blog Attachment
Subscribe to Newsletter
SIGN UP for the Newsletter.
Exclusive from Consumer Education and Research Centre!
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
"A placerat mauris placerat et penatibus porta aliquet sed dapibus, pulvinar urna cum aliquet arcu lectus sed tortor aliquet sed dapibus."
John Doe, Astronomer
Bubble Company Inc. © 2011-2014