IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Refund with Interest – When a consumer is forced to seek a refund due to the developer’s failure, the relief must be restitutionary and compensatory.
(2) Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation & Misrepresentation – The Commission established that if a developer depicts a specific amenity (in this case, a 24-meter-wide access road) in brochures and layout plans to induce buyers, it creates a “legitimate expectation.” Labeling the road as “proposed” in fine print does not absolve the developer of liability if the facility is not available at the time of possession. Failure to provide such a key facility amounts to material misrepresentation.
(3) Road fell outside the licensed land – Even if the road fell outside the licensed land, the developer had an obligation to ensure accessibility as promised.

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 02.07.2013 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 “Fonsumers” 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 license