National consumer commission orders Noida developer to refund Rs 1.60 crore to homebuyer after 10-year delay

‘Clear deficiency’

• Totality of facts and circumstances reveal clear deficiency on the part of opposite parties to deliver the flat.
• The four opposite parties included Delhi based M/s Saha Infratech Private Limited, managing director of this company Aniel Kumar Saha, director of the company Ashok Sirohi Kumar and Delhi based M/s Logix Developers Private Limited.
• It shall be equitable to direct the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,60,17,369 with simple interest of 11 per cent per annum from the date of respective deposits till date of actual payment within eight weeks of passing of this order.
• From the pleadings on record and on the basis of an affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the complainant, it remains uncontroverted that opposite parties failed to deliver the flat as assured to the complainant.
• The developers failed despite having received a substantial amount of consideration in terms of agreement to sell dated July 15, 2014.

• In the absence of any written version having been filed on record, averments made in the complaint remain unchallenged.
• The amount of Rs 37,07,000 admittedly has been paid by the complainant out of personal funds while loan amount of Rs 1,23,10,369 was disbursed by HDFC Bank.
• A total amount of Rs.1,60,17,369 is stated to have been paid by the complainant.
• Out of this, an amount of Rs 1 crore is further stated to have been partly paid to the Bank by the complainant towards partial settlement of loan amount obtained from HDFC Bank.
• The liability of opposite parties 1 to 4 shall be joint and several.
• Out of the total amount payable by the opposite parties to the complainant, outstanding balance payment towards home loan shall be paid to HDFC Bank in the first instance after making due adjustments of the amount.
• Balance amount shall be paid to the complainant.

Relief granted

• Allowing the complaint, the national consumer commission directed the developers to refund Rs 1,60,17,369 to the complainant with 11 per cent interest per annum from the date of respective deposits until actual payment.
• Relying on the Supreme Court precedents, including Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022), to affirm that interest on refunded amounts should run from the date of deposit.

• The consumer commission also directed the developers to make the payment within eight weeks from the date of the order.
• Pay 12 per cent interest in case of default beyond the stipulated period.
• First clear the outstanding home loan dues with HDFC Bank before paying the balance to the complainant.
• Pay Rs 25,000 as litigation costs.

Flat booking, payment timeline

• According to the complaint, Gupta had booked a residential flat number C-2002) in the “Amadeus” project located in Sector 143, Noida, on July 15, 2014, for a total consideration of Rs 2.38 crore.
• He paid Rs 37.07 lakh from his own funds, while an additional Rs 1.23 crore was disbursed by HDFC Bank as a housing loan.

• The total payment made towards the flat amounted to approximately Rs 1.60 crore.
• The developer had assured possession within 33-36 months from the date of first disbursement, failing which the buyer could seek a buyback option under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated July 14, 2014.

Repeated delays, broken assurances

• Despite the lapse of over two-and-a-half years, construction did not progress as promised.
• The complainant invoked the buyback clause in April 2017.
• Emails exchanged between the parties showed that while the developer acknowledged its inability to repurchase the flat due to “adverse market conditions,” it repeatedly sought extensions and assured compliance.

• However, even after further extensions including one as late as November 2018, the developer failed to honour its obligations, prompting Gupta to approach the national consumer commission seeking a refund with interest.

Proceedings before commission

• The opposite parties failed to file their written response within the statutory period of 45 days, leading the consumer commission to close their right to contest the complaint on November 15, 2022.

• The case thereafter proceeded ex parte against the developers.
• The commission noted that the complainant’s claims, supported by documentary evidence including agreements, loan records, and correspondence, remained “unchallenged.”

Significance

• The ruling reinforces the principle that developers cannot indefinitely delay possession or evade contractual obligations under the guise of market conditions.
• It also underscores that failure to contest proceedings within statutory timelines can prove costly, as courts may proceed ex parte and rely entirely on the complainant’s evidence.
• By granting interest from the date of deposit, the consumer commission reiterated that homebuyers are entitled to compensation for the prolonged deprivation of their funds.