The liability of opposite parties 1 to 4 shall be joint and several, said the national consumer commission. (Image generated using AI)Noida consumer news: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a group of real estate developers to refund over Rs 1.60 crore to a homebuyer for failing to deliver a flat in a Noida housing project, “Amadeus” holding them guilty of “clear deficiency in service.”A bench of Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra (Retd.) and Member Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was hearing a consumer complaint of 2020, filed by one Kumar Gupta against M/s Saha Infratech Private Limited and others alleging failed delivery of a flat seeking refund of his money. The developers failed despite having received a substantial amount of consideration in terms of agreement to sell dated July 15, 2014, the consumer forum said. (Image enhanced using AI)“The facts and circumstances clearly reflect deficiency on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 (developers) to deliver the flat despite having received consideration of Rs.1,60,17,369/- out of total consideration of Rs.2,38,25,625,” said the national consumer commission on March 18.‘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.Also Read | ‘You cleared it, can’t doubt now’: Apex consumer body raps HDFC for U-turn, orders Rs 25 lakh relief to kin of deceasedIn 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 grantedAllowing 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.Also Read | Doctor’s testimony exposes ‘fake’ evidence: National consumer body orders insurance firm to pay Rs 49 lakh to kin of deceasedThe 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 timelineAccording 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.Also Read | Axis Bank ordered to pay Rs 3.19 crore to firm after refusing demonetised cash: Why NCDRC called it ‘deficiency in service’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 assurancesDespite 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.Also Read | Repay Rs 1.21 crore to Gurgaon homebuyer with 12% interest, national consumer panel orders Vatika Ltd after 7-year delayHowever, 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 commissionThe 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.Also Read | 18-year dispute: Why national consumer body ordered Oriental Insurance to pay 75-yr-old’s US medical claimThe 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.”SignificanceThe 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.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd