Accepted possession of a delayed flat? Senior citizens' case shows you may still seek compensation

Anita Malik and Vijay Malik, both senior citizens residing in Sainik Farms, New Delhi, booked a residential apartment from Godrej Properties Ltd. and its associate developers for a total consideration of ₹1,48,41,179. They paid ₹10 lakh as the booking amount on August 24, 2011. The Apartment Buyer Agreement was signed on October 18, 2012. As per the agreement, the committed date of possession was 18 months from that date, with a 6-month grace period, i.e., October 18, 2014.

The builder had collected ₹44.70 lakh even before the agreement was executed. The complainants (the senior citizen couple) alleged that the builder, under threat of forfeiture and penal interest, collected all payments from them.

The possession was finally offered on August 14, 2016, nearly two years after the committed date. However, the flat was not habitable.

The complainants sought a full refund of ₹1,56,61,184 along with 18% interest, compensation of 1% of the total amount paid, and ₹2 lakh as litigation costs. During the hearing on January 12, 2026, however, the couple's Counsel told NCDRC that, "they now prefer the possession over refund, although refund was their main prayer and prayer for possession was the alternative prayer."

The builder argued that the apartment was ready for possession as per the committed date in October 2014, after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, but possession was deferred because of a PIL before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking the Force Majeure clause.

The NCDRC noted that the builder "fairly admitted the delay in possession from 18.10.2014 to 23.03.2016," the date on which a valid offer of possession with a restored OC was made.

In its order dated August 4, 2026, the NCDRC granted delay compensation at 6% per annum on the amount paid by the complainants, calculated from October 18, 2014 to March 20, 2016. If any delay in compensation had already been paid under Clause 4.3 of the agreement, which provided for ₹5 per square foot per month, it would be adjusted against this amount.

The Commission also addressed the issue of maintenance charges. The builder claimed ₹10,87,241 as maintenance charges up to August 2025. The NCDRC directed that delay compensation payable to the complainants be adjusted first against any maintenance or other charges owed by them, and that "no interest or penalty shall be charged on any maintenance charges as per this order".

On the question of defects, the complainants had emailed on January 14, 2026, that they would "ignore any snag" and not file any objection. When questioned why they wrote this if defects persisted, their counsel said "it was possibly out of frustration due to the long pendency of the case". The NCDRC directed that the developer will ensure that all such deficiencies are rectified within a maximum of one month and the flat is made fully habitable.

The Commission also ordered the builder to execute the conveyance deed within 45 days, noting that the complainants had not received legal title despite possession being given in 2016 . Any delay beyond 45 days would attract a penalty of ₹25,000 per month. The complainants were also awarded ₹50,000 as litigation costs.

Takeaways

The case illustrates several practical takeaways for homebuyers facing delayed possession.

The compensation rate granted by the NCDRC was 6% per annum, not the 18% the complainants demanded.

The builder's Force Majeure defence did not fully succeed, as the Commission held the builder liable from the committed date of possession until the date a valid offer with OC was made.

The order also shows that even if a buyer writes to a builder saying they will ignore defects, the Commission can still direct repairs based on photographic evidence. And if a builder has not executed a conveyance deed years after giving possession, the Commission can order it done with a penalty for delay.