Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member,
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
Mona Arora – Appellant
versus
S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 349 of 2025
(Against the Order dated 25.03.2025 in Appeal No.480/2022 of the Haryana State Commission, Panchkula) With IA/7762-7763/2025, IA/11026/2025 (Condonation of delay, Exemption from dim documents, C/d)
Decided on 4.12.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Bhavook Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Prithvi Singh Narula, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, Ms. Kavya Uppal, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51(2) – Real estate – Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount – In given facts and circumstances of case, complainant was justified in not making payment of 4th instalment – Complainant is entitled to interest – Orders of both District Commission and State Commission suffer from material irregularity and cannot be sustained – OP (Respondent) shall refund principal amount, alongwith 9% interest from date of each deposit till date of actual payment – In addition, complainant is entitled to additional cost of Rs.25,000/-. (Para 14)
Result: Second Appeal allowed.

ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member—The present Second Appeal (SA) has been filed by the Appellant against the Respondent as detailed above, under section 51 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 25.03.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 480 of 2022 in which order dated 21.07.2022 of Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 527 of 2020 was challenged, inter alia praying for:—

a. Setting aside the order dated 25.03.2025 of the state Commission

b. Directing the respondent/Developer to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to the Appellant on the principal amount of Rs.50,36,473/- from the date of its deposit with the Respondent/Developer

c. Directing the respondent Developer to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Appellant on account of mental agony and harassment.

2. While the Appellant (s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission, the Respondent was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission. For sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before District Commission.

3. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 01.7.2025. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.09.2025 (Complainant) and 29.10.2025 (Opposite Party) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the SA, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that complainant booked a flat with the opposite party and paid the booking amount of Rs.6,77,348/-. Thereafter, allotment letter was issued to her by the OP. Complainant entered into buyer agreement with the OP for allotment of residential flat No. IB, 1st Floor, Building No.1 in the project of the OP ‘The Leaf at SS Society, located at Sector 84-85, Gurugram. The total consideration of the flat was agreed to be Rs.1,67,86,200/-. The Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 27.10.2014. The complainant paid Rs.54,16,522 till date. As per clause 8 of the agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months and three months grace period to the Opposite Party (in all 39 months) from the date of signing of the Flat Buyer Agreement i.e. till 25.01.2018 but OP failed to fulfil its promise of delivering the flat on time. Complainant sent several emails dated 23.06.2017, 06.09.2017, 31.10.2017, 06.02.2018, 11.04.2018, 24.11.2018 and 16.08.2018 with regard to flat in question. The OP also raised the demands for payments vide various emails. As per the buyer agreement, neither the possession has been granted to her nor any satisfactory or convincing reply was given to her in response to her queries. Complainant sent legal notice dated 15.01.2020 to the OP for refunding the entire amount I i as paid by her and the OP replied to the legal notice. The OP despite several emails and legal notice, did not refund the deposited amount alongwith interest. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Commission and District Commission vide order dated 21.07.2022 partly allowed the complaint with direction to the Opposite Party to refund the principal amount of Rs.50,36,473/- to the complainant but without interest, holding both the complainant and Builder at fault. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 25.03.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is before us now in the present SA.

5. Appellant has challenged the said Order dated 25.03.2025 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

a. The Appellant did not seek termination of the flat buyer agreement dated