The court upheld that one-sided contract terms infringe consumer rights, allowing refund requests when promised amenities are not delivered.

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under S.12(1)(c) read with S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by the Complainant, against the Opposite Party, M/s. Ireo Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Developer'), for refunding of deposited amount as the Opposite Party Developer has failed to hand - over the possession of the Apartment booked by him in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of , within stipulated period as "The Ireo Skyon" prescribed in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement.

2. According to the Complainant, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Housing Project in the name and style of "The Ireo Skyon" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Project') located at Golf Course Extension Road, Sector - 60, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Opposite Party Developer drawn very rosy picture of the Project and represented that it would be a unique Project with "sweeping balconies, corridors overlooking a Central Golf Park, swimming pool, gymnasium, coffee bar, massage rooms, snooker room, table tennis, squash courts, badminton court, dance and yoga room etc. and also assured timely delivery. Attracted by the representation and assurances given by the Opposite Party Developer, Complainant booked a Residential Apartment in the Project by paying a booking amount of 24,45,501 on 28.2.2013. Vide Allotment Offer Letter dated 28.3.2013, the Complainant was allotted Unit No. SY - D - 1205, 12th Floor in Tower D admeasuring Super area of 2,088 Sq. Ft. for a total Sale Consideration of 2,38,28,256. According to the Complainant, before execution of the Buyers Agreement, he paid a sum of 1,00,48,255 to the Developer during the period from February 2013 to September 2013. After a lapse of period of 7 months from the date of booking, Apartment Buyer's Agreements (hereinafter referred as the Agreement) was executed between the Parties on 6.9.2013. As per Clause 13.3 of the Agreement, the possession of the Unit was to be handed over within a period of 42 months from the date of approval of the building plans. Clause 13.3 of the Agreement reads as under:
"Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein and further subject to the allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not being in default or any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to offer the possession of the said Apartment to the Allottee within a period of 42 (Forty Two) months from the date of approval of the Building Plans and / or fulfillment of the preconditions imposed thereunder ("Commitment period"). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 180 days ("Grace period"), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period to allow for unforeseen delays beyond the reasonable control of the Company. "

3. The Complainant made payment of 2,20,88,865 till May 2015 as per demand of the Opposite Party Developer, despite that the Opposite Party Developer could not complete the construction work at the Project within stipulated period and failed to deliver the possession of the Unit to the Complainant in terms of the Agreement. The Complainant also requested the Opposite Party Developer to refund the amount paid by him along with interest but the Developer threatened to forfeit the earnest money,