A Gurgaon homebuyer who paid Rs 1.73 crore for a flat in Sector 83 and waited more than a decade without possession has been awarded a refund with 12% interest, along with Rs 4 lakh in compensation and litigation costs, by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, according to a Times of India report.
The 2,600 sq ft apartment was booked in 2012, with the basic sale price fixed at Rs 6,428.50 per sq ft. The Builder Buyer Agreement, signed in November that year, required the developer to complete construction and hand over the apartment within three years. The buyer ultimately paid Rs 1,72,93,048.76, partly through a home loan, but the project remained incomplete.
After the promised possession failed to materialise, the buyer first approached the National Company Law Tribunal in Chandigarh and later moved the Haryana consumer commission. He had also sought a refund from the developer through emails and a letter sent in 2018 and 2019, before pursuing the consumer complaint.
The buyer alleged that the developer had adopted a negligent and lethargic approach, leaving construction unfinished. The builder acknowledged that the project had been delayed but attributed the delay to factors it said were beyond its control. These included the initiation of the GAIL Corridor, the failure to remove or shift defunct high-tension lines crossing the land, and the non-acquisition of sector roads by the Haryana Urban Development Authority.
The developer also disputed the buyer’s payment record and claimed that instalments had been paid only after repeated reminders. It argued that the apartment had been purchased for commercial gain and resale, rather than personal use. The builder said the total sale price was Rs 1,89,54,500 after including charges for items such as electricity meter installation, preferential location charges, club membership, external development charges, internal development charges and an interest-free maintenance security amount.
The commission nevertheless held the developer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed the builder to return the deposited amount with 12% interest calculated from the dates of the respective payments until realisation. It also awarded Rs 3 lakh for mental harassment and physical agony, plus Rs 1 lakh towards litigation costs.
The commercial-purpose objection was central to the builder’s defence, but the order did not expressly address it, according to the report. Gaurav Singh, counsel at Clavius Legal, said the commission recorded the booking as being for personal residence, considered the home loan and focused primarily on the prolonged failure to deliver possession. He said an assertion that a buyer intended to profit from resale would not, by itself, establish that the transaction fell within the commercial-purpose exclusion.
The case also highlights the separate remedies available to delayed homebuyers. The report noted that a refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act is not contingent on the allottee purchasing the property for personal use. The Supreme Court has recognised an allottee’s right to seek a refund with interest when a promoter fails to deliver possession within the agreed period. The commission’s direction will require the developer to pay the refund, interest and awarded costs as ordered.
