National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Adil Ahmed Walvir vs M/S. Antrikash Urban Greek & Anr. on 19 January, 2026
Date of pronouncement:-19.01.2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION NEW DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 558 OF 2018
Sh. Adil Ahmed Walvir
S/o Sh Mohammed Abdulla Walivir
R/o Villa No.47, Rabiat Al Qurum
Opp. City Centre, Muscat, Oman. ..... Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Antrikash Urban Greek
A Unit of A.J.N. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Corporate Office:- S-302, 303
3rd Floor, Aggarwal Mall, Plot No.3
Sector-5, Near Ashirwaad Chowk Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
2. Square Yard Consulting Private Ltd.
Registered Office;- B-3/96, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
Also at
Corporate Office:-442-443, B-3 Block,
Spaze-Itech Park, Sohan Road,
Gurgaon-122001. ....... Opp. Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Appearance at the time of arguments:-
For the Complainant : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 1 : None.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Ms. Neha, Advocate
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
ORDER
CC/558/2018 Page 1 of 9
1. In brief as per the case of the complainant opposite party no. 2 (Square yard Consulting Private Ltd.) is an authorized broker of opposite party no. 1 (M/s Ankktrikash Urban Greek) for the purpose of approaching potential customers for booking of apartments in residential scheme in Delhi, under the name and style of Antrikash Urban Greek, located in 'L' Zone, Dwarka Expressway, New Delhi. Based upon the representations of opposite party No. 2 in August, 2015, complainant finalized two residential apartments bearing No. F-1801 and F-1802 on 18th Floor, Tower No. 'F', having an area of 2500 sq.ft. each, at the rate of Rs.4500/- per sq. ft., vide booking application dated 19.08.2015. As per payment plan, 10% of the amount was payable at the time of booking, 10% within 45 days of booking and 10% at the time of Land Transfer Certificate (TLC). The payments to be made thereafter were linked with stage of construction. The total consideration of each apartment was at Rs.1,25,37,500/-. Complainant handed over two cheques towards advance booking amount for Rs.12,00,000/- each vide cheque no. 670791 dated 19.08.2015 and cheque No. 535334 dated 19.09.2015 to OP-2, for booking of said two apartments which were forwarded to opposite party No. 1. The cheques were acknowledged by OP-1 vide receipts dated 28.08.2015 and 23.09.2015 and booking was also confirmed vide letter dated 28.08.2015 and 23.09.2015. CC/558/2018 Page 2 of 9
2. It is further the case of complainant that an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- each, was paid towards apartment No. 1801 and 1802 on 20.10.2015 and 04.10.2015 respectively, making the total payment to Rs.24,00,000/- each. However, since there was no progress or update of construction, complainant vide e-mail dated 22.01.2017 requested OPs for cancellation of booking.
It was subsequently revealed, that OP-1 had not procured any land for construction of apartments and the amounts were collected without owning any land from the concerned authority, which amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
3. Present complaint has accordingly been preferred in February, 2018 seeking refund of amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- along with compound interest @ 24% from 20.10.2015 till realization, along with compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Perusal of the record reflects that vide Order dated 10.07.2023, the written version filed by OP-1 was directed to be taken off the record since the same was filed without complying with the conditional order dated 21.02.2020 for payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- However, it may be appropriate to notice that in the written version the payment of amount was not disputed and also the liability to return was admitted. However, the stand was taken that the allotment was made subject to land pooling CC/558/2018 Page 3 of 9 policy in terms of notification by the Ministry of Urban Development. Further delay in undertaking the project was due to non-finalization of the land pool policy.
5. In the written version, OP-2 submitted that Square Yard Consulting Pvt. Ltd. provides listing services for real estate opportunities and does not solicit sales or collect consideration in any way from the buyers of property. The listing services are similar as available in any telephone directory, Google or information services like 'Just Dial' and provides information on its website as given by the builder for information to the public. Further, no charges are paid by the members of the public who visit the site. As such, offering of any paid services to the complainant was denied. It is further the case of OP-2 that it was not a party to the agreement entered into between complainant and OP-1/Antariksh Urban Greek. As such no cause of action arose against OP-2, since no consideration was received by them. Neither, any representation or commitments about delivery of flats are stated to have been made on behalf of its employees. It was further stated that OP-2 despite being not obligated by any agreement had extended all possible support to the complainant in getting in touch with OP-1.
6. In the rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of the OP-2, complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The CC/558/2018 Page 4 of 9 services are stated to have been provided by OP-2 to OP-1 on commission basis.
7. Complainant led his evidence by way of affidavit and relevant documents were exhibited as Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/20. Copy of the booking application dated 19.08.20154 is Ex. CW1/1; copy of acknowledgement receipt of cheques dated 19.08.2015 and 19.09.2015 received by the opposite party is Ex. CW1/2; copy of payment receipts dated 28.08.2015 and 23.09.2015 are Ex. CW1/3 and 4; the confirmation of booking of apartments by OP-1 vide letter dated 28.08.2015 and 28.09.2015 are collectively Ex. CW1/5 and 6; copy of e- mail dated 01.10.2025 issued by OP-2 for the payment of due amount is Ex. CW1/7; payment of amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to OP-1 against unit No. 1801 vide receipt dated 27.10.2015 is Ex. CW1/8; payment of Rs.12,00,000/- against booking of unit no. 1802 vide receipt dated 08.10.2015 is Ex. CW1/9; e-mail dated 22.01.2017 seeking refund of booking amount by the complainant is Ex. CW1/10 and copies of e-mail exchanged between the complainant and opposite parties are collectively Ex CW1/11 to 20.
8. OP-2 led evidence of Veenu Motwani by way of affidavit and the stand taken in the written version was reiterated.
9. Ld. counsel for the complainants submits that liability of OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.48,00,000/- towards booking of two units is CC/558/2018 Page 5 of 9 apparent since the construction of project has not been undertaken by OP-1 despite assurances. The payment is evidenced by the issuance of payment receipts as well as correspondence exchanged between the parties. He further submits that complainant could not be expected to wait endlessly. Further payments are stated to have been made to OP-1 on assurances and representations made by OP-2 to complainants and as such the liability cannot be escaped by OP-2 by contending that listing services were only being provided. He emphasizes that there was a clear business relationship between OP-1 and OP-2 and no business entity would work for another entity without receiving monetary consideration. He urges that privity of contract is to be inferred based upon the relationship between the parties.
10. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP-2 vehemently contends that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP-2 which was merely providing the listing services to public. Further no consideration is stated to have been received from the complainant in this regard. It is further submitted that despite the fact that OP-2 was not involved in the contract all possible support was extended to the complainant for getting in touch with OP-1.
11. We have given considered thoughts to the contentions raised and perused the record carefully.
CC/558/2018 Page 6 of 9
12. Evidently, the booking of the flats appears to be against the allocation of land subject to Regulations for operationalization of land policy 2018 (Land Pooling Regulations, 2018). The payment of amount also stands admitted by way of correspondence exchanged between the parties and evidence led on record. In the absence of written version on behalf of OP-1, there does not appear to be any cogent reason to doubt the testimony of complainant that the project does not appear to have been undertaken by OP-1 despite assurances. The complainant in the facts and circumstances cannot be expected to wait endlessly having paid the booking amount and some partial payments in the year 2015. Thus, OP-1 on face of record is liable to reimburse the amount paid by the complainant.
13. With regards to compensation payable in such refund matters, Hon'ble Apex Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022 held as under:-
"We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be CC/558/2018 Page 7 of 9 payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.
At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda, II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC) held that multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justifiable.
14. However, OP-2 has vehemently disputed its liability on the ground that there is no privity between the complainant and OP-2, since neither any consideration was received by OP-1 from the complainant nor any representations regarding the project were made on its behalf. It is urged that OP-2 had been merely providing the listing services which were free of consideration. The afore-said position is disputed by the complainant merely by bald assertions though admittedly there is no document to draw contractual relationship between the complainant and OP-1. In the absence of any concrete evidence that OP-2 was an agent of OP-1, it cannot be held that OP-2 was liable for enforcement of contract between the complainant and OP-1. We are of the considered view that in the absence of any privity of contract between the complainant and OP-2, no liability can be affixed against OP-2. CC/558/2018 Page 8 of 9
15. For the afore-said reasons, OP-1 is directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of respective deposits till realization. In case the afore-said Order is not complied within a period of six weeks the rate of interest for the delayed period beyond the period of six weeks shall be at the rate of 12% p.a. Complainant is accordingly allowed against OP-1 with cost of Rs.25,000/-. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. A copy of this Order be provided to the parties.
................................................ (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.) PRESIDING MEMBER ........................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J) MEMBER ar/B-4/reserved matter CC/558/2018 Page 9 of 9