Anita Malik and Vijay Malik, senior citizens from Sainik Farms, New Delhi, purchased a residential apartment from Godrej Properties Ltd. and its associate developers for ₹1,48,41,179. According to reports from The Economic Times, they paid ₹10 lakh as booking amount on August 24, 2011, and signed the Apartment Buyer Agreement on October 18, 2012. The committed date of possession was October 18, 2014, with a 6-month grace period, but possession was finally offered on August 14, 2016, nearly two years after the committed date.
The complainants initially 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. As reported by The Economic Times, during the hearing on January 12, 2026, their counsel told NCDRC that they now prefer possession over refund, although refund was their main prayer. The builder had collected ₹44.70 lakh even before the agreement was executed, with the complainants alleging the builder collected all payments under threat of forfeiture and penal interest.
In its order dated August 4, 2026, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granted 6% per annum delay compensation on the amount paid by the complainants, calculated from October 18, 2014 to March 20, 2016. According to The Economic Times, 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 builder fairly admitted the delay in possession from October 18, 2014 to March 20, 2016, the date of valid offer with restored Occupancy Certificate.
The builder claimed ₹10,87,241 as maintenance charges up to August 2025. As reported by The Economic Times, NCDRC directed that delay compensation payable to the complainants be adjusted first against any maintenance or other charges owed by them, with no interest or penalty charged on maintenance charges. On defects, the complainants had emailed on January 14, 2026, that they would "ignore any snag" and not file any objection, but their counsel explained this was due to frustration from long case pendency. The Commission directed the developer to rectify all deficiencies within one month and make the flat fully habitable.
The Commission ordered the builder to execute the conveyance deed within 45 days, noting the complainants had not received legal title despite possession in 2016. According to The Economic Times, any delay beyond 45 days would attract a penalty of ₹25,000 per month. The complainants were awarded ₹50,000 as litigation costs. The case demonstrates that even if buyers write to builders saying they will ignore defects, the Commission can still direct repairs based on photographic evidence, and builders can be ordered to execute conveyance deeds with penalties for delay.
