BENGALURU: Despite the actions taken by law enforcement and the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA), the issue of double sales continues to affect unsuspecting homebuyers. Many of these buyers are desperately seeking justice, with some hoping for relief from K-RERA, which has started issuing judgments that address prolonged complaints.
In a ruling on December 22, 2025, the K-RERA addressed a complaint from Sudhir, a victim, ordering the respondents — Sri Vanishelters, LS Srinidhi, B Kenchappa Gowda, and G Vidyavathi — to reimburse Rs 32,94,816 with interest. The interest rate is based on the SBI’s marginal cost of funds-based lending rate (MCLR) plus two percent, from February 14, 2020, to June 12, 2025, to be paid within 60 days.
The interest accumulating from June 13, 2025, until payment will be calculated similarly and must also be paid. The Authority noted that the respondents missed multiple opportunities to submit their calculation memo. “A detailed review of the evidence submitted shows the claim is valid. Based on all factors, this Authority determines that the complainant is entitled to a refund with interest,” stated the judgment.
K-RERA observed that from the details in the complaint and the agreements, it was clear the complainant had paid a significant portion of the sale price. “Acceptance of payment without fulfilling possession duties entitles the complainant to a refund plus interest,” the order emphasized.
Furthermore, the respondents had agreed to provide possession by February 19, 2023, including a grace period, yet still have not delivered. The complainant initially paid an advance of Rs 5,50,000 and secured a housing loan of Rs 28,00,000 from LIC Housing Finance, agreeing to settle the remaining balance during registration.
Later, the respondent proposed an alternative 3BHK flat No. A-301 for Rs 48,00,000, assuring the complainant of handling all necessary formalities, including loan transfer. Trusting this assurance, the complainant canceled the agreement for Flat No. B-306 and entered a new sale agreement dated August 20, 2022, for Flat No. A-301.
The new agreement stipulated that construction would be completed and possession handed over within six months. However, the respondent failed to meet this deadline, did not complete the project, and did not execute the sale deed as promised.
“After the complaint was registered, notices were sent to the respondents, but they did not respond or appear before this Authority,” the judgment revealed.
