Consumer Commission Orders WTC Chandigarh Developer to Refund ₹69.3 Lakh with Interest for Delay in Possession

February 25, 2026 : The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial unit within the stipulated time and directed refund of the amount paid by the buyers with interest.

A Bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member) observed that an allottee cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession of a property, particularly when the developer has already received a substantial portion of the sale consideration.

The complaint was filed by Ramanjit Sidhu and Mannat Chandail against M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The complainants had purchased a commercial unit measuring 1000 square feet in the project “WTC Chandigarh – Retail Space” located at Aerocity, Mohali, for a total sale consideration of ₹86,80,000.

According to the record, the parties executed a Developer Buyer Agreement on 19 May 2018. As per Clause 4.4 of the agreement, the developer was required to deliver possession of the unit within 48 months along with a grace period of six months, making the committed deadline 18 November 2022.

The complainants paid ₹69,30,631 between February 2018 and January 2024, which amounted to nearly 80% of the total sale consideration. However, despite receiving the substantial payment, the developer failed to complete construction and hand over possession of the unit within the agreed timeframe.

The complainants submitted that repeated requests were made to the developer seeking possession, but no response was received. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, they approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund of the amount along with interest.

In response, the developer raised objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. It contended that the unit had been purchased for commercial purposes and therefore the complainants did not qualify as “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act. The developer also argued that proceedings concerning the project were already pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on a complaint filed by the WTC CHD (Mohali) Allottees Welfare Association.

However, the Commission noted that several opposite parties failed to appear despite service of notice and were proceeded against ex parte, drawing an adverse inference against them.

Rejecting the developer’s argument regarding the consumer status of the complainants, the Commission observed that the buyers had clearly stated that the unit was purchased for the purpose of earning their livelihood. The Commission held that mere purchase of a commercial unit does not automatically exclude a buyer from the definition of consumer when it is intended for self-employment or livelihood.

The Commission also rejected the objection based on the pendency of proceedings before RERA, noting that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to other statutory remedies and the availability of a remedy before RERA does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.

On examining the material on record, the Commission found that possession had not been delivered even long after the contractual deadline. The developer had also failed to produce any completion certificate, occupancy certificate, or evidence to show that the project had been completed or possession had been offered.

The Commission observed that the delay in the present case was substantial and wholly unexplained. It noted that the developer retained a significant amount of ₹69,30,631 for several years without delivering the promised unit, which constituted a clear breach of contractual and statutory obligations.

Emphasising the rights of allottees, the Commission reiterated that a homebuyer cannot be forced to wait indefinitely for possession and is entitled to seek refund where delay defeats the very purpose of the agreement. The Commission relied on Supreme Court judgments in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan and Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima, as well as the National Consumer Commission’s decision in Sujay Bharatiya v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.

In view of these findings, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the developer and its directors, jointly and severally, to refund ₹69,30,631 to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until realisation.

The Commission further directed the opposite parties to pay ₹75,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹35,000 towards litigation costs. The refund amount is to be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which it will carry penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum until payment.

Case Title: Ramanjit Sidhu & Anr. v. M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/74/2025
Decision Date: 25 February 2026