A Mumbai consumer commission has directed real estate developer Soundlines Eco Homes and its partners to refund ₹45.45 lakh, along with 9% annual interest, to a homebuyer who did not receive possession of his flat in Panvel within the agreed deadline. The total payout, including accrued interest, was reported at ₹86.37 lakh.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, also ordered the developer and its partners to pay ₹75,000 towards litigation costs and mental agony. It held that a homebuyer cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for possession and that the developer’s failure to meet its contractual commitment amounted to a deficiency in service.
The case concerns Tapan Visaria, a resident of Mulund, who booked an 876 sq ft carpet-area flat on the third floor of the D-Wing in the Sound Delight residential project at Aashte village in Panvel, Raigad district, in August 2015. The flat was priced at ₹50.52 lakh, and the registered agreement for sale dated 7 August 2015 stipulated possession by 31 December 2016, according to a TOI report.
However, the buyer did not receive possession within the promised period. The project’s completion timeline was repeatedly extended, with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) website subsequently reflecting a deadline of 30 September 2026.
According to the complaint, Visaria paid ₹45.45 lakh towards the flat, besides ₹1.38 lakh in taxes, ₹2.53 lakh in stamp duty and ₹30,000 in registration charges. He also alleged that several amenities advertised in the project brochure, including a clubhouse, amphitheatre and children’s play area, were either cancelled or not provided as promised.
Developer failed to explain delay
The commission examined documents submitted by the homebuyer, including the registered sale agreement, bank statements, payment demand letters, email correspondence, photographs and a certificate showing housing loan interest paid.
The developer and its partners did not appear before the commission despite receiving notices. The proceedings therefore continued in their absence. The commission found that the evidence established that the developer had failed to hand over possession within the agreed period and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
It directed Soundlines Eco Homes and its partners to refund ₹45,45,268 with interest at 9% a year, calculated from 31 December 2016, the contractual possession date, until the amount is actually paid. The total refund, including interest, was reported at ₹86.37 lakh.
Why the home loan interest claim was rejected
While allowing the refund claim, the commission rejected Visaria’s separate demand for reimbursement of ₹5.23 lakh in interest paid on his housing loan from State Bank of India.
The commission relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs Anupam Garg (2025). It observed that the buyer had independently taken a loan from the bank and remained contractually responsible for repaying the borrowed amount with applicable interest.
The fact that a purchaser incurs interest expenses to arrange funds for buying a flat does not, by itself, make the developer liable to reimburse those expenses, the commission held, according to the reported order.
For homebuyers facing prolonged possession delays, the case highlights the distinction between seeking a refund with interest for a developer’s failure to honour the agreement and recovering other expenses incurred while financing the purchase. The outcome of any such complaint will depend on the agreement, the evidence submitted and the applicable legal precedents.
