Vinod Sampat, advocate and president at Cooperative Societies' Residents and Users Association, however, draws attention to a ruling that may lend hope to consumers. In May 2007, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a Goa State Redressal Commission order directing a real estate developer to give alternate premises of similar dimensions and in the same locality to the complainant (buyer). This, along with 18% interest per annum, on Rs 1,84,000 paid by him, from August 1991--the required possession date. Alternatively, the builder was asked to pay three times the purchase amount to the buyer--Rs 5,52,000--within 30 days of the order. Sampat adds, "Suppose I had booked a flat for Rs 20 lakh and now it's worth Rs 50 lakh, I'm eligible for the original flat or alternatively a similar flat in the neighbouring area, irrespective of price... When anyone approaches the court (for deficiency in service), its ruling is binding (on the builder).'' Sampat also advises filing of a criminal case against the builder for offences of nuisance and criminal breach of trust.

The reason builders are lackadaisical about compensation, say consumer groups, is because there is no real estate regulator yet. The only recourse available to consumers then, it appears, is approaching the courts. Bejon Misra of Delhi's Consumer Voice, however, says: "A consumer doesn't want to get into a legal tangle and just wants his flat in hand. Builders take advantage of this helplessness.'' Misra adds, "There is a great need for government regulations for builders in terms of both quality and good practices... Due to the strong influence of property developers within policymaking bodies, a regulator (for the sector) is not coming into force.'' Mofatraj Munot, former president at Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, however, assures: "The Centre is trying to put in place a regulator. It is in the offing.''