The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Sanchar Nest Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, a Ghaziabad-based cooperative housing society, to refund over ₹79 lakh to two homebuyers along with interest and compensation, after finding it guilty of deficiency in service for failing to hand over possession of residential flats even after more than 15 years. The ruling, delivered by a bench led by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Member Bimla Kumari, marks a significant consumer-law precedent for cooperative housing societies.

Background: A Decade-and-a-Half of Broken Promises

The complaint was brought by Parmod Kumar Mahopatra and Mahender Singh Bisht, both employees of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), through advocate Sarvesh Roy. The two became members of the society in 2010 after being assured possession of flats by 2012. When disputes arose over the original project land in Noida, the society shifted their bookings to its 'Palm Wood Enclave' project in Wave City, Ghaziabad, promising that amounts already deposited would be adjusted against the new project.

Allotment letters were eventually issued in June 2019, but physical possession was never transferred. Records before the Commission confirmed that the complainants paid a combined total of ₹79.43 lakh — substantially more than the originally indicated costs — after the society repeatedly escalated charges under heads including parking, GST, service tax, and other levies.

Society's Defence and Why the Commission Rejected It

The housing society argued on multiple fronts: that as a cooperative body it did not constitute a commercial builder, that no consumer-service provider relationship existed, that the complainants themselves had sought cancellation of their memberships, and that delays were attributable to land disputes, rising construction costs, environmental restrictions, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Commission rejected each argument. It held that a cooperative housing society undertaking residential construction for consideration falls squarely within the definition of a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act, and that the complainants qualified as consumers entitled to seek relief before the forum.

On the pandemic defence, the bench was pointed: 'It is clear from the record that possession of the flats remained undelivered for several years, even prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020. Therefore, the contention regarding COVID-19 raised by the Opposite Party to justify the inordinate delay in handing over possession is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected,' the judgment stated. The Commission noted that no cogent documentary evidence had been produced to justify the prolonged delay.

Key Legal Finding: Continuous Wrong Doctrine

The Commission invoked settled legal principles on housing construction disputes, ruling that non-delivery of possession constitutes a 'continuous wrong' — meaning a fresh cause of action arises every day possession is withheld. 'Failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong, it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to the Complainants, the Complainants are within their right to file the present complaint before this commission,' the judgment read.

The bench further observed: 'It is clear that the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the flat in question even after the passing of more than 15 years from the date of the agreement dated 25.07.2013.'

What the Commission Ordered

The Commission directed Sanchar Nest Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd to refund ₹39.08 lakh to one complainant and ₹40.34 lakh to the other. Interest at 8.25% per annum will apply from the respective dates of payment until 8 June 2026, provided the refund is completed by 8 August 2026. Should the society default, the interest rate escalates to 11.25% per annum from the date of deposit until actual realisation.

Beyond the principal refund, the Commission awarded ₹4 lakh towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants, and ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs.

What This Means for Homebuyers

The ruling reinforces that cooperative housing societies cannot sidestep consumer law by claiming they are not commercial builders — a defence that has been attempted in several similar cases. For homebuyers stuck in stalled or delayed cooperative housing projects across the National Capital Region, the judgment offers a clear legal pathway. The 'continuous wrong' doctrine also addresses a common procedural hurdle: the argument that a complaint is time-barred because the original agreement was signed years ago. All eyes will now be on whether the society complies within the 8 August 2026 deadline or faces the steeper default interest rate.