NAGPUR: The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nagpur has ordered a local real estate company to refund ₹3 lakh to a couple, including 9% interest from October 27, 2017. The commission further awarded ₹30,000 for mental distress and ₹10,000 to cover legal expenses.
The couple, both medical professionals, had booked a flat for ₹79.27 lakh in 2015 at a housing project on Besa-Pipla Road. They paid ₹1 lakh on October 27, 2015, and an additional ₹2 lakh on February 29, 2016.
According to their complaint, lodged through attorney Ashish Fule, the couple experienced significant delays in construction despite multiple reassurances. They ultimately canceled their booking on July 7, 2017, due to “unavoidable circumstances” and requested a refund. The developer allegedly promised repayment within three months starting July 27, 2017, but failed to follow through despite repeated requests. This compelled the couple to approach the consumer forum in 2019.
The company argued that the cancellation was voluntary and not due to service deficiencies, insisting that the flat was 85-90% complete and ready for possession, and claimed the couple had defaulted on payments and did not execute the sale agreement. It further asserted that the case was merely a money recovery issue and was time-barred under the Consumer Protection Act.
However, commission president Satish Sapre and member Milind Kedar dismissed this argument, noting that there was no provision allowing for forfeiture of the booking amount. “The opposite party has not provided any evidence of loss or a clause that permits such forfeiture. Retaining the full amount without written consent amounts to unjust enrichment,” the order indicated.
The commission concluded that failing to refund the booking amount after the cancellation was a deficiency in service. It also confirmed that the complaint was filed within the two-year limitation period from the cause of action.
The commission instructed the company to comply within 45 days, whether jointly or separately, reinforcing that developers cannot withhold consumers’ funds without legal or contractual justification.
