Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member,
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Sandeep Sahijwani and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Godrej Premium Builders
Private Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Complaint No. 1203 of 2019 With
IA No.15397 of 2024 (Exemption of File Typed Copies of Documents), IA No. 15396 of 2024 (Additional Fact), IA No. 5565 of 2025 (Early Hearing)
Decided on 9.12.2025
For the Complainant:Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Prashant Arora, Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kapil Madan, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Gauba, Ms. Aadhya, Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Ms. Sanya, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Failure to make true disclosure by Builder, coupled with silence upon an explicit grievance, constitutes unfair trade practice under C.P. Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Real estate – Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – Material misrepresentation was made by Opposite Party by depicting the 24-meter road in its layout plan, and subsequently failing to deliver the same or provide any effective alternative – Even if some portion of road was beyond Developer’s control, this ought to have been clearly disclosed at the time of booking – Failure to make such disclosure, coupled with silence upon an explicit grievance, constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Act – Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Complainants are entitled to refund of amount deposited, along with compensation in the form of 9% interest – Opposite Party directed to refund deposited amount to Complainants along with 9% interest – Opposite Party shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- to Complainants towards litigation costs. (Paras 18, 19 and 20)
Result: Consumer Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainants booked an apartment in the project “Godrej Summit” situated at Sector 104, Gurugram, Haryana. Pursuant to an application dated 09.11.2012, the Opposite Party issued an Allotment Letter dated 03.03.2013 in favour of the Complainants, allotting Apartment No. GODSUMG 1502 on the 14th floor of Tower-G, measuring 1269 sq. ft., at a total sale consideration of Rs.95,45,110/- calculated @ Rs.6,750/- per sq. ft., excluding the statutory charges. An Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 13.05.2013, wherein it was agreed that possession would be delivered within 46 months from the date of allotment, with a further grace period of six months, i.e., by 02.01.2017. The Complainants made timely payments, totalling Rs.99,22,379.51/-, as per the agreed schedule. However, the Opposite Party issued the possession letter only on 26.06.2017 and failed to honour several representations made in the brochure and Agreement, including the promise of a 24-meter wide access road to the Apartment.
3. The Complainants lodged their grievance with the Opposite Party on 10.12.2017, highlighting that the offered possession did not conform to the brochure and agreed terms. However, the Opposite Party responded only to demand the balance payment without addressing the grievance. The Complainants made their final payment of Rs.4,00,000/- on 07.02.2018. The Complainants had availed a housing loan of Rs.32,50,000/- from HDFC Bank on 2.7.2013 and had paid interest @10.4% per annum, aggregating Rs.19,15,333.33/- as on date. The Opposite Party was thus also liable to refund the interest paid to the bank. The Complaint also alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party in charging separately for parking. Aggrieved with the same, the present Complaint was filed with the following prayers—
“a) direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,37,712.00/- including the deposit amount of Rs.99,22,379/- and Rs.19,15,333/- towards interest paid by the complainant to bank till date.
b) to pay future interest and pendente lite interest @20% per annum on the aforesaid amount from date of filing of present complaint till its realization.”
4. The Opposite Party has filed its Written Statement and resisted the Complaint. It has denied all the material averments made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has averred that the Complainants are not “Consumers” under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the flat was booked for speculative investment purposes and also that the Complaint is barred by limitation as possession was offered on 26.06.2017, whereas the Complaint was filed after expiry of the two-year period; That the Complainants booked Unit No. GODSUMG 1502 in Tower G at the project “Godrej Summit” at Sector 104, Gurugram via Application dated 09.11.2012, after which the Allotment Letter dated 03.03.2013 was issued, and the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.05.2013 was executed. The Flat was booked under a construction-linked payment plan for Rs.95,45,110/-, and possession was offered on 26.06.2017 upon receipt of the Occupation Certificate, with over 300 other buyers already taking possession; That invoices were raised in accordance with the construction milestones and payment schedule. However, the Complainants have neither taken possession nor cleared their dues, and instead raised baseless objections relating to non-construction of a 24-meter access road, which the was not within the Opposite Party’s scope or responsibility;
5. The Opposite Party has further averred in its Written Statement that the Final Development Plan of 2021 and the Sector Plan of 2011 issued by Haryana State Authorities clearly earmarked a 24-meter sub-arterial road falling outside the licensed projec
