A consumer commission has ordered a real estate developer and its partners to refund approximately ₹86.37 lakh to a Mumbai homebuyer who faced a nearly decade-long delay in receiving his flat. The buyer had booked the property in Panvel, Maharashtra, in 2015 for over ₹50 lakh, with an initial possession date set for December 2016.
Consumer Commission Rules Against Developer
The ruling by the consumer commission found Soundlines Eco Homes and its partners accountable for the significant delay. The commission directed the developer to jointly and severally refund ₹45.45 lakh, along with 9% annual interest calculated from December 31, 2016, until the date of repayment. With the accrued interest, the total amount due to the homebuyer stands at approximately ₹86.37 lakh.
In addition to the refund and interest, the commission awarded ₹75,000 as compensation for the mental agony and litigation expenses endured by the buyer. The commission emphasized that a homebuyer "cannot be expected to wait indefinitely" for property possession, deeming the developer's failure a clear deficiency in service.
Details of the Delayed Project
The buyer booked a flat in the 'Sound Delight' residential project located in Aashte village near Panvel in August 2015, for a sum of ₹50.52 lakh. The registered agreement for sale, dated August 7, 2015, stipulated that possession would be handed over by December 31, 2016.
However, the buyer reported repeated delays, with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) website subsequently showing an extended completion timeline until September 2026. Concerns were also raised regarding construction progress, demands for payments without proper architect's certificates, difficulties in site inspection, and the alleged cancellation or non-provision of advertised amenities like a clubhouse and amphitheatre.
Home Loan Interest Claim Rejected
While granting substantial relief for the delayed possession, the commission rejected the buyer's claim for reimbursement of ₹5.23 lakh paid as interest on his housing loan. Citing a 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) vs Anupam Garg, the commission noted that the repayment of an independently obtained loan remained the buyer’s responsibility.
The developer and its partners reportedly failed to appear before the commission despite receiving notices, leading the matter to proceed ex parte.