IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed date. The “reciprocal promises” of payment and construction must be viewed contextually; a consumer cannot be expected to keep pouring money into a stalled project.
(2) Status of Investor vs. Consumer – The burden of proof lies on the Developer to provide evidence if they claim an allottee is a “real estate investor” and not a “consumer.” In the absence of such evidence, the allottee is entitled to protection under the Consumer Protection Act.
(3) Correction of Factual Errors in Second Appeal – Under Section 51(2) of the CPA 2019, while the scope is generally limited to substantial questions of law, the NCDRC can interfere with concurrent findings if the lower forums have ignored material evidence, drawn wrong inferences from proved facts, or based their decision on factually incorrect premises.

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, 6.2.2018, 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