Godrej Projects is ordered by a consumer court to reimburse a homebuyer Rs. 51.36 lakh

As restitution for failing to construct a 24 metre road linking the project, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered Godrej Projects Development Ltd to refund the full principal cost of Rs. 51.36 lakh to a homebuyer together with 9% interest. The NCDRC stated that the road was depicted in the marketing and buyer agreements and added that road connection was a crucial aspect that influenced buyers' decisions to invest in the project.

Additionally, the lack of a regular wastewater treatment facility, electricity supply, or water supply was considered a "deficiency of service" on the part of the builder.

In this instance, the buyer reserved a 2324 sq ft (super area) apartment in the Godrej Summit project in August 2014, and in October 2015, they signed the builder-buyer agreement. The builder requested the customer to pay the remaining money after obtaining the occupancy permit in June 2017.

After visiting the site, the buyer discovered that the unit was not built according to the plan and that the 24 m road, promised safety measures, and proximity to the Dwarka Expressway, among other things, were not available as promised by the builder. As a result, the buyer withheld the final payment.

In December 2017, the developer cancelled the apartment's allocation and kept the earnest money, which totaled Rs 46.94 lakh.

The complainant was justified in asking for a refund of their deposits in light of the aforementioned observations regarding the non-provision of a 24 m wide road outside the project area as well as the deficiency in providing other utilities on a regular basis up until the committed time-frame of offer of possession.

The state authorities are without a doubt responsible for acquiring the land and building the road, as shown by a careful examination of the complainant's and the OPs' (opposite parties) arguments, as well as by the pertinent documents in this regard. The OPs have also acknowledged that they are responsible for paying the proportionate share of the costs associated with the aforementioned acquisition and construction.

The proposed 24 m road outside the project area leading to the Dwarka Expressway, which was a key feature of the project, was depicted in the advertisements/brochure of the OPs and the Buyers' Agreements, and it was undoubtedly a significant factor for the prospective purchasers to reserve the units in the said project believing that such a connectivity would exist when the project was completed.

According to the order, the project's assignees have undoubtedly suffered as a result of the ambiguity surrounding the project's development as well as the potential timetable, even if the road is eventually built.

A review of the written statement or response of the OPs reveals that the complainant's complaints regarding regular water supply, electricity supply, and sewerage treatment plant deficiencies are valid, and that these utilities are currently provided to the allottees on an as-needed basis only until the concerned state authorities make permanent arrangements for their regular provision by setting up the necessary infrastructure for the s.

The developer was ordered to reimburse the buyer the entire Rs. 51,36,338 principal sum as well as compensation in the form of simple interest calculated at a rate of 9 percent annually from the date of each payment until the date of the refund. According to it, the complainant's exact payment amount must be verified using receipts and other documents before the principle amount refundable is granted.

The builder has also been ordered to pay the complaint Rs 25,000 in court costs, and the court has given him three months from the date of the order to comply.

According to the statement, if the buyer has a loan from a bank or other financial institution and it is still unpaid, the return amount will be used to pay off the rest of the loan before going to the buyer. In order for the builder to issue refund checks or draughts in accordance with the order, the buyer has been instructed to provide the necessary documentation from the relevant banks or financial institutions to them within four weeks of receiving the order.

In its response, the builder refuted the buyer's claims and claimed that the commission lacked pecuniary authority in the current case. The Commission's scope of authority is exclusively confined to examining the issue of a service deficiency and does not extend beyond the parameters of the agreement. It stated that the buyer is not a consumer in the current case because he purchased the apartment for investment purposes, and therefore, in accordance with ABA article 19, the dispute should first be resolved through arbitration.

The builder argued that there was no lack of service on its end because the state authorities were supposed to build the 24 metre road connecting the highway and drinking water.

"This ruling made it plain that even the builder's failure to develop a road 24 m wide as promised in its brochure at the time the dwelling unit was being sold could be a reason for a refund for an allottee. Even though the builder maintained that the 24 m wide road was the state government's obligation, the NCDRC ordered a refund, according to Piyush Singh, Partner, PSP Legal, who argued on behalf of the homebuyer.

In the case of this project, even today, entry and exit to the project are through a revenue rasta, and even the layout of the project was changed without obtaining necessary approval from authorities, he continued. "This is a landmark judgement since developers make tall promises in their brochure and lure people to book apartment," he said.