Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 451

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, Shashi Nandkeolyar, Member
Ritu Singh Mann – Appellant
Versus
Adani M2K Projects LLP – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1007 OF 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dheeraj Kumar Garg
For the Respondents: Ritu Raj Srivastav, Seema Sundd, Jayant Pawar, Siddharth

A developer cannot enforce one-sided contractual terms on consumers. When an agreement is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without room for negotiation, it constitutes an unfair trade practice. Consequently, consumers are entitled to a full refund and developers cannot forfeit funds without proving actual loss.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Unilateral and one-sided contract terms - Housing development - Builder’s application for allotment and draft agreement - Obligations of developer - When a contract contains one-sided clauses that the consumer is forced to sign on the dotted line without room for negotiation, such terms are unfair trade practices. (Paras 36, 37)

(B) Contract Law - Principle of sanctity of contract - Forfeiture of earnest money - In the absence of evidence demonstrating actual loss by the developer, forfeiture of amount exceeding 10% of the sale price as earnest money is not reasonable - Conditional payments - A developer cannot encash a conditional payment sent by a consumer while simultaneously refusing to negotiate disputed terms. (Paras 42, 44)

Facts of the case:
A consumer booked a residential apartment and made substantial payments. The builder required the consumer to sign a standardized, 60-page agreement without permitting any modifications or deletions. The consumer objected to several clauses, terming them one-sided and unfair, and sought to negotiate revisions. The builder refused to negotiate, demanded compliance, and subsequently cancelled the allotment when the consumer insisted on amendments, forfeiting a portion of the deposits. The matter reached the commission after the consumer sought a refund of the principal amount with interest.

Findings of Court:
The commission found that the developer's practice of forcing the consumer to sign an unnegotiable, one-sided agreement constituted an unfair trade practice. The developer failed to demonstrate that the consumer's request for amendments was unreasonable or that the developer suffered actual loss justifying the forfeiture of earnest money beyond established norms. The cancellation of the allotment was held to be unjustified.

Issues: (1) Whether the terms of the allotment and draft agreement were fair and binding upon the consumer. (2) Whether the developer was justified in cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the deposited amount after the consumer refused to sign an unnegotiable, one-sided agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: A developer cannot unilaterally thrust one-sided contractual terms on a consumer. If terms and conditions are non-negotiable and oppressive, the consumer is not bound by them, and such practices violate consumer rights. Consequently, the consumer is entitled to a full refund of the principal amount with interest, and the developer's forfeiture of funds is impermissible where no actual loss is proved.

Result: Complaint allowed.

Table of Content
1. unfair trade practices in unilateral developer-buyer agreements. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. procedural history, jurisdiction, and maintainability of the consumer complaint. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. contentions regarding commercial purpose and privity of contract. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. arguments concerning cancellation, forfeiture, and alleged breach of contract. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. court's analysis on unfair contract terms and burden of proof for forfeiture. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. conclusion directing refund due to unjustifiable cancellation and forfeiture. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainants against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for following directions / reliefs :

a. OP No.1 be directed to refund all amounts paid by the complainants till date amounting to Rs.49,71,504 including TDS deposited by the Complainants and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. compounded quarterly on the said amount from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

b. OP No.1 be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. compounded quarterly which till 31.03.2017 amounts to Rs.47,91,461/-.

c. Exemplary damages of Rs. 10,000/- be awarded against each of the OPs

2. Notice was issued to the OP(s). Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc.

3. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and other case records are that Complainants were approached by Opposite Party No. 2 (agent of Opposite Party No. 1) with an offer to purchase a flat in a housing project developed by Opposite Party No. 1. Vide e-mail dated 05.10.2012, Mr. Vikas Wadhawan (CFO, Opposite Party No. 2) shared details of the “Oyster Grande” project in Sector 102/102(A), Gurgaon, developed by the Adani Group, representing it as a premier project. Relying on these representations, the Complainants booked a three-bedroom flat therein. Opposite Party No. 2 represented that only a few flats remained and insisted on immediate payment to secure one, pursuant to which ₹8,00,000/- was paid on 16.10.2012 via cheque to block the flat. Thereafter, on 19.10.2012, its representative obtained a duly filled and signed application/allotment form and collected an additional ₹2,00,000/- as application/allotment fee via cheque in favour of Opposite Party No. 1. Since the allotment papers ran into several pages, the Complainants requested a copy before signing. They were connected to Mr. Vikas Wadhawan of Opposite Party No. 2, who assured them that the documents were a mere formality and that a complete set, along with the formal Agreement, would be provided later. He further urged them to immediately sign and hand over the forms, documents, and cheque, citing the last date for submission at Gurgaon. The complainants insisted upon receipts for the payments, which were issued on 05.11.2012 but copy of allotment form was not received. The complainants were also assured by OP No.2 that letter of allotment would be issued shortly together with terms and conditions of allotment and were orally told by OP No.2 that a ground floor flat was being allotted to them with super area of 1889 sq. ft.

4. In December 2012, the Complainants received a demand of Rs. 12,00,000/- under the construction-linked plan. Relying on assurances that a detailed Agreement would soon be executed, they paid the said amount in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 through Opposite Party No. 2. In the last week of January 2013, the Complainants received a letter dated 01.01.2013 along with a Provisional Allotment Letter dated 21/24.01.2013 from Opposite Party No. 1, allotting Apartment No. A-003 (Ground Floor) with a super area of 1889 sq. ft. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 451

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONInder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, Shashi Nandkeolyar, MemberRitu Singh Mann – AppellantVersusAdani M2K Projects LLP – RespondentCONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1007 OF 2017

Cases Referred (4)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, Shashi Nandkeolyar, Member
Ritu Singh Mann – Appellant
Versus
Adani M2K Projects LLP – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1007 OF 2017