NOIDA: The District Consumer Commission has ruled that Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited, based in Greater Noida, must refund a homebuyer who booked a flat in 2014. Despite paying numerous instalments over the years and receiving an allotment letter, he never acquired possession of the property.
Sanjay Agrawal, a resident of Sector 22, booked a flat in Ansal’s A2 Sushant Megapolis project in Greater Noida. He initially paid a registration fee of ₹250 in March 2014, followed by a booking fee of ₹15,000 and additional instalments totaling ₹1 lakh against a total flat price of ₹3.25 lakh. An allotment letter was issued on April 10, 2015.
After several years of waiting for possession, Agrawal discovered that the building remained incomplete. He requested the developer to cancel the booking and refund his money with interest; however, no action was taken.
Subsequently, Agrawal approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on July 10, 2022. Although notices were issued to Ansal Hi-Tech Townships, the company did not provide any written response or representation. Consequently, the proceedings began ex parte on August 22, 2023.
The commission, led by chairperson Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma, evaluated Agrawal’s case based on the documents and an affidavit he provided. They concluded that Agrawal had paid his instalments as agreed, while the developer failed to deliver possession.
The commission stated, “It is evident from the facts and records that while the complainant diligently paid the instalments according to the terms, the opponent has been deficient in service by not providing possession even after receiving payments.”
The commission ruled that Ansal Hi-Tech Townships must refund Agrawal ₹1,00,762 plus 6% interest accrued from the date of the complaint to the date of payment within 30 days. Additionally, ₹2,000 was awarded for litigation expenses and mental distress.
This ruling was made ex parte due to the absence of any representative from the developer. Ansal Hi-Tech Townships has faced similar decisions in other cases before the commission.
