Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3058
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, AVM J. RAJENDRA, MEMBER
Partha Pratim Biswas, Aditi Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Royal Garden City Enterprises Ltd. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.25 OF 2011
For the Complainants:Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocate (VC)
For the Opposite Parties: Ex parte
The court established that promotional misrepresentations by real estate developers violate consumer protection laws, obligating them to refund investments with interest.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(nnn), 2(1)(r), 2(1)(o), 21 - Deficiency of service - Unfair trade practice - The complainants invested USD 2,00,000 based on misleading representations made by OPs regarding a luxury housing project which was never initiated - Complainants argued they were victims of fraudulent misrepresentation and deception by the OPs' promotional campaigns - The court found that OPs failed to commence construction and did not refund the money, being in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 4, 10, 12)
(B) The requirement of interest on deposit - The court upheld that interest on refund must be computed from the date of deposit, ensuring restitution to the complainants for their monetary loss. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The complainants, NRIs, sought to purchase a villa in a project marketed as 'Royal Garden Villas' but were misled by OPs about its approvals and progress, leading to no construction and loss of their investment of USD 2,00,000.
Findings of Court:
OPs are directed to refund USD 2,00,000 with interest at 9% from the deposit date, or 12% for delays.
Issues: Misrepresentation by OPs, failure to deliver contractual obligations, and entitlement to restitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that misrepresentation and failure to fulfill service obligations constitute grounds under the Consumer Protection Act for restitution and damages.
Result: Complaint disposed of with directions for refund and interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint regarding contractual breach and misrepresentation. (Para 1) |
| 2. details on the complainants' investment and ops' failure to deliver. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on restitution and consumer rights. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 4. failure of ops to provide services leading to complaint. (Para 10) |
| 5. final order for refund and interest to complainants. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER
1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 2 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) inter alia for deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g), for restrictive trade practice under section 2(1)(nnn) and for unfair trade practice under section 2(1)(r) R/W (1) (o) against the Opposite Parties (OPs) seeking to direct the OPs:-
A. direct the OPs to jointly and / or severally repay the amount - of USD $ 2,00,000/ or its rupee equivalent along with 18% interest to the complainants from 01.03.2007 till the date of realization of the amount; and
B. direct the OPs to jointly and / or severally pay to the Complainants the escalation costs of property from 01.03.2007 (which had been admitted by the Respondents to have - escalated to Rs.2,01,93,770/ even as on 08.07.2008) till the date of realization of the monies at the rates prevailing on the said date or @ 30 % increase over the selling price of USD - 2,00,000/ whichever is higher; and
C. direct the OPs to jointly and / or severally pay to the Complainants a compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs towards agony and mental harassment caused to the Complainants; and
D. direct the OPs to pay costs to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Complainant; and
E. pass such other and any further Order(s) / Direction (s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.
2. It is seen from the record that on 21.03.2011 the matter was heard and notice was issued to the OPs and the case was listed for hearing on 12.07.2011. On 12.07.2011, it was revealed from the Registry report that the notice issued to OPs-1 to 6 was returned with postal remarks, „Unclaimed‟ and the notice with respect to OPs-7 and 8 was not received, including AD cards. Thereafter, as per order of this Commission dated 28.09.2011, fresh notices were issued to the OPs and it was revealed that the notice with respect to OPs-1 to 6 was returned with postal remarks „parties left‟ and with respect to OPs-7 and 8, no feedback or AD cards were received. Since, AD cards were not received back undelivered, a presumption was made that the notices were served on OPs- 7 and 8 vide order dated 28.09.2011. Thereafter, on 18.11.2011 the complainant had sought permission for substituted service on OPs-1 to 8 in the form of notice by way of publication, which was allowed and the complainants served the OPs notice by way of publication in The Hindu, Bangalore, Overseas Edition of Vancouver Courier and Udaya Vani (Kannada). Accordingly, the notice by way of publication was made and as per order dated 27.01.2012 and this publication was done. However, none appeared for OPs on 30.03.2012. Accordingly, the OPs were placed ex parte vide order dated 30.03.2012 and the complainant proceeded with filing evidence through affidavit.
3. Subsequently, the complainant filed IA/454/2014 seeking to delete the names of OP Nos.5, 6 and 8. The same was allowed and accordingly the revised memo of parties was filed on 22.03.2019 with five OPs as stated. Thereafter, none appeared for OPs on any of the subsequent hearings including the final hearing on 13.01.2025.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that the complainant nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and are Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) residing in California, United States of America, for over twenty years. With the intent of eventually returning to India and settling in a permanent residence, the Complainants sought to purchase a residential villa in a reputed and secure housing project. In or around the year
