Possession delivered, certificate missing: NCDRC orders Ansal to pay Rs 100 a day on Gurgaon flat
Ansal Housing won on car parking charges and a blanket bar on demands, but the National Commission held that handing over Flat 804 in Ansal Heights did not end the deficiency while no occupancy certificate had been obtained, and moulded relief for a buyer who had not appealed.
Gaurav Bhardwaj booked Flat No. 804 in Tower I of Ansal Heights, Sector 86, Gurgaon, under a flat buyers' agreement of 5 March 2013. He got possession on 16 June 2026, more than thirteen years later and only after the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered it. On 16 October 2026 the Commission disposed of Ansal Housing's appeal against the Delhi State Commission order in his favour. It struck down a ₹3 lakh refund of car-parking charges and a blanket ban on further demands, and stopped delay compensation at the date of handover. But because Ansal produced nothing to show that an occupancy certificate had been obtained for the flat, the bench directed it to pay ₹100 a day from 17 June 2026 until the certificate is in hand, even though the buyer had filed no appeal of his own.
A 2013 booking, a 2020 offer and a 2023 order
Ansal issued an offer of possession on 5 December 2020, accompanied by demands for various charges. Bhardwaj challenged the demands and the failure to actually deliver the flat before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. CC/107/2022. By its order of 13 July 2023 the State Commission directed Ansal to hand over possession, refund ₹3,00,000 charged for covered car parking with interest, pay compensation for delayed possession at ₹5 per square foot per month, pay ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and harassment and ₹50,000 as litigation costs, and raise no further demand in respect of the apartment.
Ansal Housing, along with Kushagr Ansal, Ashok Khanna, M.K. Trisal, Neha Ansal and Iqneet Kaur, came to the National Commission late. They said they learned of the order in November 2023, applied for a certified copy on 12 February 2024 and received it on 16 February, filed a revision petition on 21 February in the belief that this was the correct remedy, and filed the present appeal on 6 March 2024 once the Registry questioned maintainability. Bhardwaj pointed to emails of 9 and 26 August 2023 and to the execution proceedings as proof that Ansal had known of the order much earlier. Presiding Member Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Member Dr. Sadhna Shanker condoned the delay in the interest of justice, having regard to the route the appellants had taken before the Commission.
Parking was already in the price; the ban on demands was too wide
On the merits, Ansal argued that the State Commission had misread the contract. The basic sale price of ₹49,85,200 included preferential location charges and one covered car park, while several other charges were expressly excluded and payable separately under the agreement. The refund of ₹3 lakh for parking therefore contradicted the agreement, compensation for delay could not run beyond actual delivery of possession, and the State Commission could not have imposed a blanket prohibition on further demands when the buyer had never asked for one. Ansal also objected to any relief being enlarged in its own appeal when the buyer had not appealed.
The Commission agreed on the first point. The statement of account of 5 December 2020, read with the agreement, showed that the basic price covered the preferential location charges and one covered parking space. Its own order of 24 March 2026 had recorded Ansal's submission that the buyer had paid both, that charges for external electrification, fire fitting and power backup remained payable, and that Ansal was no longer claiming escalation charges. On that record the separate direction to refund ₹3,00,000 with interest could not be sustained and was set aside.
The blanket bar in paragraph 26 of the State Commission order went too. Ansal may raise only such charges as are contractually authorised and legally payable, after giving credit for amounts already paid, and may not claim escalation charges in view of its submission of 24 March 2026. On delay, it was admitted that possession was delivered on 16 June 2026 under the Commission's order of 26 May 2026, so compensation at ₹5 per square foot per month runs only up to that date.
Keys without a certificate: the deficiency that continues
Delivery of physical possession, the bench held, does not by itself discharge the builder's obligation to obtain the requisite occupancy certificate. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Mohit Khirbat, 2026 INSC 170, which reiterated the significance of the certificate and the deficiency in service that arises from its absence. No material had been placed before the Commission to show that a certificate for the apartment existed. Ansal must therefore pay compensation of ₹100 a day from 17 June 2026 until the certificate is obtained from the competent authority.
That left Ansal's objection that the buyer, having not appealed, could be given nothing more than the State Commission had awarded. The bench pointed to its own decision in Dr. Satish Kumar Dabas v. Shambu Dayal, Revision Petitions 1858 and 1869 of 2015, decided on 14 November 2017, which discussed Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the power of an appellate forum to mould relief in appropriate cases even for a party who has not filed its own appeal. Read with the authorities cited in it, that principle did not support the absolute proposition Ansal advanced. The new direction rested on a subsisting deficiency, the absence of the occupancy certificate after possession, and was confined to that deficiency.
Order
The appeal was partly allowed and the order of 13 July 2023 modified. The direction for possession stands satisfied, possession having been delivered on 16 June 2026. Compensation at ₹5 per square foot per month operates only up to that date; from 17 June 2026 Ansal pays ₹100 a day until the occupancy certificate is obtained. The ₹3,00,000 parking refund with interest and the bar on further demands are set aside, with Ansal limited to contractually authorised and legally payable charges after adjusting amounts already paid, and no escalation charges. The awards of ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and harassment and ₹50,000 as litigation costs stand. There was no order as to costs in the appeal, and the pending applications for stay and exemption were disposed of as infructuous.