Consumer dispute commissions across India have issued a series of significant rulings under the Consumer Protection Act, ordering refunds, compensation, and in one case a prison sentence, as courts from Hyderabad to Mumbai cracked down on deficient services and unfair trade practices. The orders, issued between June 3 and June 17, span disputes involving real estate developers, a government beverages corporation, and a contractor, and together signal the growing assertiveness of consumer forums in enforcing buyers’ rights.
Hyderabad: Flat Owner Wins Terrace Access Battle
A landlord and builder in Hyderabad were directed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I to pay Rs 30,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as costs to a flat owner who had been denied access to the building’s terrace. The bench, comprising president B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy, issued the order on June 5.
The complainant couple alleged that no restriction on terrace access was disclosed at the time of purchase. The landlord subsequently claimed the terrace was reserved for his exclusive use and argued the complainants had not paid maintenance and had rented the flat to bachelors who caused a nuisance. The landlord, however, forfeited his right to contest the case by failing to file a written defence within the prescribed period.
The commission found entitlement to terrace access under Clause 4 of the sale deed, which transferred all rights, titles, interests, easements, privileges, and enjoyments to the purchasers. “The complainants are genuinely entitled for usage of the terrace rights under clause 4 of sale deed,” the commission stated, adding that denying such access constituted a deficiency in service. The builder, who argued he had already sold all flats under his share of the development agreement and had no role in the dispute, was also made a party to the order.
Kerala and Punjab: Overpriced Beer, Incomplete Housing Scheme
In Kerala, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Pathanamthitta, in an order dated June 3, directed the Kerala State Beverages Corporation to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation and costs for charging Rs 10 above the maximum retail price on a beer bottle. The bench, headed by president George Baby and member Nishad Thankappan, held that charging above the MRP amounts to an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In Jalandhar, a consumer commission on June 4 directed the Jalandhar Improvement Trust to refund the full deposited amount with 9% per annum interest to a woman named Anita, 51, who was allotted a flat in the Indira Puram development scheme under an allotment letter dated September 4, 2006. Anita had paid Rs 4.37 lakh in instalments along with an earnest money of Rs 18,000. The trust, formed in 1945, claimed possession was delivered on March 11, 2011, but photographs and news clippings on record showed facilities at the scheme remained incomplete. The commission also ordered payment of Rs 40,000 towards compensation and litigation costs and held that complete possession cannot be deemed delivered unless occupation and completion certificates have been obtained. The trust’s advocate had argued the complaint was time-barred and that construction had been completed as agreed.
Real Estate Defaults Penalised in Ghaziabad, Chandigarh and Mumbai
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in an order dated June 8, directed Sanchar Nest Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd to refund Rs 79.43 lakh to two families and pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The families had booked 3BHK apartments in Palm Wood Enclave in Wave City, Ghaziabad, in 2010, with possession promised by 2012. The project was initially launched in Noida but shifted to Ghaziabad after alleged land disputes, and fresh agreements were signed in 2013. As of the reporting date, basic infrastructure including roads, water supply, and sewer systems remained listed as work in progress on the UP RERA portal, with 23 complaints filed against the project across 506 flats in three towers. “The Opposite Party was deficient in rendering services by failing to hand over possession of the flats within a reasonable period,” the commission found, noting that the society had retained the complainants’ money for nearly 16 years while continuously extending completion deadlines and raising additional demands. Advocate Sarvesh Roy, who represented the buyers, said the judgment sends a clear message that ordinary citizens’ life savings cannot be treated casually by developers.
In Chandigarh, a consumer commission order dated June 11 directed a real estate developer to refund Rs 36.36 lakh to a homebuyer after the developer failed to deliver a 2BHK flat promised for October 2021 and subsequently defaulted on a RERA settlement agreement. The buyer had paid Rs 4 lakh as a booking amount, Rs 30.34 lakh as sale consideration, and Rs 2.02 lakh in tiling charges in September 2023. Under a settlement reached on August 31, 2024, the builder agreed to pay Rs 24,000 per month in rent until June 30, 2025, but stopped payments from December 2025, citing financial difficulties. The builder did not appear before the commission and was proceeded against ex parte. The bench, comprising president Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member Brij Mohan Sharma, also directed payment of Rs 50,000 in compensation and litigation costs, stating that a buyer “is not supposed to wait indefinitely for possession.”
A Mumbai couple faced a far more protracted ordeal spanning more than a decade. They booked a 660 sq ft flat in Dongri, south Mumbai, for Rs 60 lakh in 2013, paying Rs 40 lakh including amounts raised by selling gold ornaments. The developers failed to obtain the necessary permissions for the Dongri project and, rather than refunding the money, adjusted Rs 40 lakh plus Rs 10 lakh compensation towards a flat in another project, Bay View, in Mazgaon. The couple paid an additional Rs 40 lakh between January 2016 and September 2018, bringing total consideration to Rs 90 lakh. In September 2019, the developers acknowledged they could not deliver the Mazgaon flat either and issued three cheques totalling Rs 1.15 crore, all of which bounced. A Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 29, 2021, acknowledged liability of Rs 1.25 crore, but a fresh set of cheques was again dishonoured. The Mazgaon flat was also found to have been transferred to a third party despite being fully paid for. The developers failed to appear despite notices and a public notice published in February 2025. In a June 17 order, the Mumbai commission directed the developers to jointly and severally refund Rs 1.05 crore with 10% per annum interest from June 29, 2021, plus Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 25,000 litigation costs, with interest rising to 15% if payment is not made within 60 days. The commission noted the couple had been deprived of their life savings for more than a decade and had repeatedly travelled over 150 km from Mangaon in Raigad district to pursue the case.
Mohali: Society President Sentenced to Two Years for Defying Commission Order
The starkest enforcement action came from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in SAS Nagar, Mohali, which on June 15 sentenced the president of a real estate welfare society to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh for failing to comply with a 2019 order to refund Rs 2.12 lakh to a plot purchaser.
The original March 2019 order had directed the society to refund Rs 2,12,500 with 12% annual interest plus Rs 25,000 in compensation and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs within 30 days. The bench, comprising president S K Aggarwal and member Lt Col Jasbir Singh Bath, convicted the president under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides for imprisonment of between one month and three years and a fine of Rs 25,000 to Rs 1 lakh for non-compliance with commission orders. Of the Rs 1 lakh fine, Rs 50,000 was ordered to be paid to the complainant with the remainder credited to the state exchequer; failure to pay the fine would result in an additional two months of rigorous imprisonment.
The commission made clear the reasoning behind the severe penalty. “The very purpose and object of enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 will be frustrated if the orders passed by this Commission are not being complied with,” it said, adding that “people like the complainant are crying but the accused is not complying with the orders of this Commission.”
In Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, a separate commission directed a contractor to refund Rs 85,000 with 9% per annum interest from the date of complaint and pay Rs 40,000 in compensation plus Rs 10,000 in litigation costs after faulty tile work was abandoned on a homeowner’s property. An independent expert, Vishal Jassal, a civil engineer appointed by the commission on December 20, 2025, inspected the site and found 70% of tiles were loose and producing hollow sounds, with no possibility of repair, and estimated restoration costs at Rs 1,26,663. The contractor was proceeded against ex parte having failed to contest the complaint.
