5 min readNew DelhiJun 16, 2026 12:30 PM IST
First published on: Jun 16, 2026 at 12:30 PM IST
A 51-year-old woman who paid Rs 4.37 lakh for a flat allotted by a government development authority in 2006 secured a refund nearly two decades later after a consumer commission found that the flat was not delivered with basic amenities such as electricity, water supply, sewerage or proper approach roads.
A bench of president Harveen Bhardwa, along with members Jyotsna and Jaswant Singh Dhillon of the Jalandhar consumer commission held that an allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely for a habitable home, and ordered a refund of the deposited amount with interest, along with Rs 40,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.
“The contention of the OP (authority concerned) is that the possession of the flat was delivered to the allottee at site on 11.03.2011 as such, the present complaint is barred by law of limitation, but the contention raised by the OP is not tenable as the photographs and news cuttings have been proved on record by the complainant, which shows that the facilities and development in the Indira Puram is incomplete, meaning thereby there is no development at all,” the June 4 order read.
The commission was hearing a complaint filed by Anita, who alleged that despite making full payment for the flat, she never received complete and effective possession with the promised infrastructure and civic amenities.
‘Complete possession not delivered’
- The consumer body found that even during the pendency of this complaint, the authority concerned has not brought on the file any convincing evidence to rebut the report, photographs and news publication.
- The commission found that they failed to establish that the construction in all respects is complete and that they had handed over the possession of the flat complete in all respects, including the amenities.
- It was held that complete possession cannot be considered to be delivered unless an occupation certificate and completion certificate from the competent authorities are obtained by the authority.
- The consumer body found that the authority failed to prove that the flat in question, as well as basic amenities in the entire complex, have been completed in all respects.
- The consumer body partly allowed the complaint and directed the authority to return the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest of 9 per cent per annum.
- The authority was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs 40,00 for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant along with litigation expenses within 45 days.
Flat allotted in 2006, basic amenities still missing
It was placed on record that a flat in the Indra Puram development scheme at Master Gurbanta Singh Enclave, Jalandhar, was allotted to the complainant by an allotment letter of the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, dated September 4, 2006.
The Jalandhar Improvement Trust is an urban development authority located formed in 1945 under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. It is responsible for planned civic development, land acquisition, housing and commercial infrastructure construction across the city.
It was claimed that as per the conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant paid the total amount of Rs 4.37 lakh in instalments, and earnest money of Rs 18,000 was deposited before the allotment.
Despite making full payment, she alleged that physical possession of a habitable flat was never delivered.
The complainant contended that standard material was not used by the said authority and other civil amenities like electricity connection, water connection and gas connection were not provided to her as per the terms and conditions as stated in the brochure, and thus the authority has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.
It was further claimed that the authority concerned wrote a number of letters and admitted that the connection is yet to be given by the electricity board. It was also alleged that the authority concerned also admitted about the non-availability of an approach road that was 45 feet wide.
The complainant was represented by advocate Harpreet Kaur.
‘Complaint barred by law’
Advocate M S Sood, representing the authority, argued that the present complaint is not maintainable under the law in the present form.
It was argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant had not approached the forum with clean hands but has concealed facts.
The authority contended that the construction of the flat in question was completed as per the allotment terms and conditions, and thereafter the allottee was informed that the work of construction of the flats is complete and its possession can be taken.
It was argued that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and the authority denied the allegations raised in the written statement of the complainant.
The complainant contended that civil amenities like power connection, water supply and gas connection were not provided to her as per the conditions as stated in the brochure. (AI-generated image) 
Share
