Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member
Partha Pratim Biswas and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Royal Garden City Enterprises Ltd.
and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2011
Decided on 21.5.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocate (VC)
For the Opp. Parties: Ex parte vide order dated 30.03.2012
IMPORTANT POINT
Real estate—Denial of accommodation despite taking money amounts to Unfair Trade Practice on part of Developer.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Real estate – Complainants seeking to return to India and establishing their permanent residence wanted to purchase appropriate accommodation in India – They were attracted by widespread and aggressively marketed promotional campaign launched by OPs with a high-end residential township project – Project never even started and construction approvals were refused by authorities concerned – Even thereafter, OPs did not refund amount or offer any resolution and, instead withdrew promotional content from Internet and ceased all communication with Complainants – OPs directed to refund USD2,00,000 deposited by Complainants, along with 9% simple interest. (Paras 10 and 12)
Result: Consumer Complaint disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act’) inter alia for deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g), for restrictive trade practice under section 2(1)(nnn) and for unfair trade practice under section 2(1)(r) R/W Section 2(1)(o) against the Opposite Parties (OPs) seeking to direct the OPs:—
A. direct the OPs to jointly and/or severally repay the amount of USD $ 2,00,000/- or its rupee equivalent along with 18% interest to the complainants from 01.03.2007 till the date of realization of the amount; and
B. direct the OPs to jointly and/or severally pay to the Complainants the escalation costs of property from 01.03.2007 (which had been admitted by the Respondents to have escalated to Rs.2,01,93,770/-even as on 08.07.2008) till the date of realization of the monies at the rates prevailing on the said date or @ 30 % increase over the selling price of USD 2,00,000/-whichever is higher; and
C. direct the OPs to jointly and/or severally pay to the Complainants a compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs towards agony and mental harassment caused to the Complainants; and
D. direct the OPs to pay costs to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs to the Complainant; and
E. pass such other and any further Order(s)/Direction(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case’.
2. It is seen from the record that on 21.3.2011 the matter was heard and notice was issued to the OPs and the case was listed for hearing on 12.7.2011. On 12.07.2011, it was revealed from the Registry report that the notice issued to OPs-1 to 6 was returned with postal remarks, “Unclaimed’ and the notice with respect to OPs-7 and 8 was not received, including AD cards. Thereafter, as per order of this Commission dated 28.09.2011, fresh notices were issued to the OPs and it was revealed that the notice with respect to OPs-1 to 6 was returned with postal remarks “parties left’ and with respect to OPs-7 and 8, no feedback or AD cards were received. Since, AD cards were not received back undelivered, a presumption was made that the notices were served on OPs-7 and 8 vide order dated 28.09.2011. Thereafter, on 18.11.2011 the complainant had sought permission for substituted service on OPs-1 to 8 in the form of notice by way of publication, which was allowed and the complainants served the OPs notice by way of publication in The Hindu, Bangalore, Overseas Edition of Vancouver Courier and Udaya Vani (Kannada). Accordingly, the notice by way of publication was made and as per order dated 27.01.2012 and this publication was done. However, none appeared for OPs on 30.03.2012. Accordingly, the OPs were placed ex parte vide order dated 30.03.2012 and the complainant proceeded with filing evidence through affidavit.
3. Subsequently, the complainant filed IA/454/2014 seeking to delete the names of OP Nos.5, 6 and 8. The same was allowed and accordingly the revised memo of parties was filed on 22.03.2019 with five OPs as stated. Thereafter, none appeared for OPs on any of the subsequent hearings including the final hearing on 13.01.2025.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that the complainant nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and are Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) residing in California, United States of America, for over twenty years. With the intent of eventually returning to India and settling in a permanent residence, the Complainants sought to purchase a residential villa in a reputed and secure housing project. In or around the year 2006, they came across several online promotional materials, brochures, and internet-based advertisements launched by the Opposite Parties (OPs), announcing a residential township project under the name “Royal Garden Villas and Resort.’ This project was stated to be located in about 17 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos. 53/1, 53/2, 63/1, 63/2, and 54 of Galipooje Village, Kasba
