Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 112
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Inderdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/s Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.3009/2017 | IA/4132/2025 | IA/14798/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Kain, Advocate, Mr. Karan S. Negi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Madan, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Gauba, Advocate, Ms. Aadhya, Advocate, Mr. Naksh Pandey, Advocate
The builders' failure to provide promised infrastructure constitutes a clear deficiency in service, obligating them to refund the total amount paid along with interest.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 14 and 37 - Deficiency in service - Complainant sought refund of ₹89,24,445/- for delay in possession and lack of promised amenities, particularly the 24-meter road linking to Dwarka Expressway - Agreement stipulated possession within 49 months plus 6 months grace period - Complainant justified in demanding refund due to substantial delay and unfulfilled critical promises. (Paras 1, 26, 30, 33)
(B) Deficiency in Service - Builders have an obligation to provide promised access and amenities; failure to do so constitutes deficiency, regardless of external factors. The promised connectivity was vital for the buyers' decision. (Paras 32, 33)
Facts of the case:
The complainant booked a unit under the Builder Buyer Agreement in 2013, with a promised completion date of 2017. However, the unit remained incomplete, lacking basic infrastructure, and the primary access route was never constructed, which the complainant claimed was a crucial part of the agreement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the builders failed to provide the promised road and amenities within the stipulated timeline and that a mere referral to state responsibilities was insufficient to absolve them of liability.
Issues: The central issues were whether the builders fulfilled their obligations regarding the completion of the project and access provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The builders' failure to deliver promised connectivity and complete the project constituted a deficiency in service, thus justifying the complainant's request for a full refund along with interest.
Result: Complaint allowed with directions for a full refund and interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. deficiency due to delay in project completion. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. complaint regarding conditions of possession and construction status. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments related to timeline adherence by opposite parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. opposite parties claim of compliance with legal obligations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. reference to previous cases impacting current decision. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. ongoing legal proceedings affecting obligations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. adaptations based on advice given regarding pending legal situations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. clarification on statutory and contractual obligations. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. court’s view about the binding nature of apex court orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. completion timelines and responsibilities of the opposite parties. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. final court observations on deficiencies and actions required. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. order for refund and interest due to deficiencies. (Para 34) |
ORDER
1. This Com plaint has been instituted praying that since the prom ises m ade by the O pposite Parties for providing all the com plete facilities for the enjoym ent of the Unit allotted to the Com plainant are not available even today, and were not available even on the date when the Com plaint was filed, there is a clear deficiency on the part of the O pposite Parties by not com pleting the project. The tim eline provided for the handing over of the prem ises com plete in all respects has been violated. Therefore, the relief prayed is for refund of the entire am ount together with interest @ 18 % p.m . from the date of paym ents till actual reim bursem ents. In addition thereto, a sum of Lakhs for m ental agony and harassm ent has also been claim ed. Thus, the delay in handing over of possession of a com pleted project and in particular, the absence of the 24 m eter wide road connecting the project with Dwarka Expressway, is a continuing deficiency and hence, the prayer is for refund keeping in view the fact that the booking was opted for through an application dated 10.09.2012.
2. The Builder Buyer Agreem ent was entered into on 25.03.2013 and according to the Agreem ent, the delivery of possession was to be m ade in 49 m onths plus 6 m onths of grace period. However, the Com plainant alleges that the tim eline is 36 m onths and the prospective prom ised date of possession would be 30.01.2017. It is also alleged in the Com plaint that the am ount paid is ^89,24,245/- as against the total consideration of ^90,76,790/-. The contention raised is that inspite of having paid a substantial am ount, the unit has neither been com pleted nor possession could be taken of in the project “G odrej Sum m it’ Sector 104, G urgaon, Haryana. It has been alleged in paragraph 21 onwards that the construction has not been com pleted nor the m ilestones have been achieved and no satisfactory reply has been given in spite of repeated requests with regard to the com pletion of project.
3. After the W ritten Statem ent was filed and the m atter contested, a Rejoinder has been filed by the Com plainant and while giving a reply to the prelim inary objections and subm issions on behalf of the O pposite Parties, the Com plainant in para 2 of the Rejoinder states as under:
That the complainant received the offer of possession letter from the O.P dated 29th June 2017. The com plainants also received the final statem ent of accounts along with the offer of possession. Clearly as per the offer of possession letter, OP was forcing everyone to m ake the rem aining paym ent along with one year advance m aintenance, electricity and other adhoc charges before even allowing the com plainant to visit the project site to check whether the unit is com plete and is in the habitable position. On further enquiry and the personal visit to the project site, it was observed by the com plainant that the project was far from ready to be offered for possession. THhGeF EpDroCjBeAct neither completed as per the terms
