Repay Rs 1.21 crore to Gurgaon homebuyer with 12% interest, national consumer panel orders Vatika Ltd after 7-year delay

Full payment made, but no possession

• According to the national consumer commission’s order, it was an admitted position that the complainant had paid Rs 1,21,30,000 to the developer.
• The original plot buyer agreement was executed between the initial allottee and the developer on September 12, 2012.
• Subsequently, the consumer entered into an indemnity-cum-undertaking agreement dated August 19, 2014.
• As per this undertaking, the plot was to be handed over within four years from the date of the agreement, that is, by August 2018.
• However, the national consumer commission recorded that “till date the plot in question has not been handed over”.
• In compliance with an earlier direction dated October 10, 2025, the developer filed an affidavit on December 1, 2025, stating that the project, “Vatika India Next”, was a large township spread over 550 acres in Gurgaon, Haryana, and was being developed in phases.
• The company claimed that due to “certain extraneous circumstances” not attributable to it, the specific plot could not be developed and no occupancy certificate was available.
• The developer also expressed willingness to offer an alternative unit in another project, “Vatika Seven Elements,” or refund the deposited amount as per the Commission’s directions.

Complainant seeks refund, compensation

• Appearing through a counsel along with his authorised representative, the complainant declined the offer of an alternative plot and pressed for refund of the entire amount with compensation.
• He argued that under Clause 9 of the original plot buyer agreement, the allottee was liable to pay interest at 18 per cent per annum for delayed payments.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnish Sharma v. M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd (decided on September 24, 2025), the complainant contended that principles of equity required that the same yardstick be applied to the builder for its own default.
• In that ruling, the Supreme Court had observed that while there is no rigid principle mandating parity in all cases, interest must be reasonable and depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
• The consumer sought interest from September 12, 2012, the date of the original agreement.

Developer admits receipt, cites project difficulties

• The counsel for Vatika Limited admitted receipt of Rs 1.21 crore and the non-delivery of the plot.
• However, the company submitted that it had faced “significant difficulties” in completing the project which were beyond its control, and urged the commission to consider these circumstances while determining compensation.

‘Non-delivery undisputed, refund inevitable’

• After examining the record, the Commission noted that both the payment of consideration and the failure to deliver possession were undisputed facts.
• While considering the rate of interest, the Commission relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vidya & Ors v. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8985 of 2022, decided July 29, 2024), where the apex court held that at least 12 per cent per annum interest ought to be awarded in similar circumstances.

Final directions

• In its final directions, the consumer commission ordered the refund of Rs 1,21,30,000 to the complainant.
• Simple interest at 12 per cent per annum from August 19, 2014 (the date of the indemnity-cum-undertaking agreement) till the date of final payment.
• Payment to be made within eight weeks from the date of the order.
• The national consumer commission further directed that in the event of delay beyond eight weeks, the interest rate for the delayed period would stand enhanced to 15 per cent per annum.