Maharashtra consumer panel orders Bombay Realty to refund ₹1.95 crore to two homebuyers over delayed Dadar flats
The Maharashtra Consumer Commission has directed Bombay Dyeing and Bombay Realty to refund ₹1.95 crore to two Jamshedpur-based homebuyers for failing to deliver a 1,941 sq ft apartment in Dadar East on time. The developers were also ordered to pay ₹1.5 lakh in compensation and litigation costs for d
The Maharashtra Consumer Commission has ordered Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co Ltd and Bombay Realty to refund ₹1.95 crore to two homebuyers from Jamshedpur, along with ₹1.5 lakh towards compensation and litigation costs, for failing to deliver a flat within a reasonable timeframe. The bench, comprising presiding member Poonam Maharshi and member Nisha Amol Chavhan, ruled that the developers had engaged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
According to the complaint, the buyers had booked a 1,941 sq ft apartment with two car parking spaces in Dadar East for a total price of ₹9.94 crore. Between August and October 2014, they were issued an allotment letter under a 30:70 payment plan and paid ₹1.95 crore, including an initial booking amount of ₹25 lakh. The buyers alleged that despite adhering to the instalment schedule, the developers delayed construction by over a year.
While discussions were underway to revise the payment schedule to a construction-linked plan, the developers continued issuing demands under the old scheme and sent a pre-termination letter in September 2016 threatening cancellation and forfeiture. Instead of processing a refund, the realtors persisted with demands and initiated adversarial communications. The buyers pursued criminal proceedings, which were later dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court and the Supreme Court, leaving civil remedies open for recovery of money.
The developers raised a technical objection that the complaint was barred by limitation, arguing the dispute arose in 2016. Rejecting this plea, the commission noted that the developers had issued a fresh demand letter in January 2022, thereby acknowledging the subsistence of the transaction and a continuous cause of action. The commission remarked that retaining the complainants' hard-earned money without delivery of possession constitutes a continuing wrong, and that the complaint filed within two years of the culmination of prior bona fide legal proceedings and continuing demands was well within limitation.
Relying on apex court rulings, the commission asserted that retaining the hard-earned money of homebuyers while failing to deliver the unit amounts to unjust enrichment. It added that when a developer fails to deliver possession within a reasonable time or stalls execution while retaining substantial public funds, it constitutes a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
