State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhavya Doshi & Anr vs M3M India Private Limited on 15 December, 2025
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 02.03.2021
Date of Hearing: 31.10.2025
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
COMPLAINT CASE NO- 50/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MS. BHAVYA DOSHI,
W/O HONEY SINGH
2. MR. HONEY SINGH,
S/O RAJ BAHADUR SINGH,
BOTH R/O M3M GOLF ESTATE,
FW-10-11B, GURGAON,
HARYANA.
HAVING OFFICE AT:
208, PLOT NO. 13, 2ND FLOOR, VARDHMAN TIMES PLAZA,
PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110034.
(Through: PSP Legal, Advocates and Solicitors)
...Complainants
VERSUS
M3M INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
UNIT NO. SB/C/5L/OFFICE/008, M3M URBANA,
SECTOR-67, GURUGRAM, MANESAR URBAN COMPLEX,
HARYANA - 122102.
(Through: Mr. Kapil Bakshi, Advocate
...Opposite Party
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Mohd. Imran Ahmed, Counsel for the complainant
(Enrl.No.D/13743/2022,Email:[email protected]
Mr. A. R. Takkar (Senior Counsel) and Ms. Avantika,
Counsel for the OP No. 1 appeared through VC Mr. Yash
Dewan, Counsel for the OP No. 1 (Enrl. No. UP/
10905/2018, Email: [email protected]) appeared physically.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainants alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) Direct the Opposite Party for an immediate 100% refund of the total amount paid by the Complainants after deduction of applicable taxes as per Clause 4 of the letter dated 18.05.2018 along with a penal interest of 18% per annum from the date when the right of cancellation was exercised by the Complainants i.e. 15.10.2020 till the date of realisation.
b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
to the Complainants for mental agony, harassment, discomfort and undue hardships caused to the Complainant as a result of the above acts and omission on the part of the Opposite Party.
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
c) Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainants towards litigation costs.
d) That any other and further relief in favour of the Complainants as the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants vide application form dated 13.02.2018, booked a ready- to-move-in residential apartment by paying a booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the project "M3M Golf Estate" of the Opposite Party, situated at Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana. The Opposite Party lured the Complainants into booking the apartment under a subvention scheme by assuring that it would assist the Complainants in obtaining finance for the apartment through a non-banking financial institution, namely Piramal Housing Finance Ltd. wherein, the Opposite Party was to make payment of the pre-EMI to the financial institution for a period of three years i.e., from April 2018 to January 2021. The Opposite Party further assured the Complainants that, at any point during this three-year period, the Complainants would have the right to retain or refuse the allotment of the apartment in case they were not satisfied with the apartment.
3. Subsequently, the Opposite Party vide allotment letter dated 19.03.2018, allotted apartment bearing no. MGE TW-10/11b for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,52,996/- to the Complainants in the aforementioned project. Thereafter, the Opposite Party handed over possession of the said apartment in March 2018. However, the Complainants were shocked to see that the apartment offered was not the one initially shown to them or chosen by them at the time of booking but the Complainants were compelled to ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
accept the said apartment as the Opposite Party had already collected a substantial amount of Rs. 40,05,144/- from them.
4. Further, an Apartment Buyer Agreement dated 03.04.2018 was executed between the parties. However, the Complainants were shocked to see Clause 42.4 of the agreement, which mentioned that, in case of cancellation of the apartment by the Complainants, the Opposite Party would be entitled to forfeit the earnest money equivalent to 15% of the total sale consideration of the apartment. When the Complainants strongly objected to this clause, stating that it was contrary to the assurances given to them at the time of booking, the Opposite Party assured them that this was a standard clause and would not prejudice their rights in any manner. The Opposite Party assured the Complainants that no such deduction would take place in case they decided to exit the project.
5. The Opposite Party subsequently sent a "Permission to Use" letter dated 19.04.2018 and another letter dated 18.05.2018, which categorically stated that the Complainants would have the right to cancel the allotment and seek a refund of the amounts paid by them. Thereafter, the Complainants diligently followed the payment plan and paid a total amount of Rs. 3,95,12,772/- to the Opposite Party to date. A tripartite agreement was also executed between the parties on 03.04.2018. To ensure timely payments, the Complainants availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from Piramal Housing Finance Ltd. based on the assurances of the Opposite Party.
6. However, shortly after taking possession of the said apartment, the Complainants faced the following problems:
a. Severe leakage in geysers, flooding of the apartment due to ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
substantial leakage, poor finishing of doors due to substandard materials, non-availability of a gas pipeline, absence of various common amenities and facilities such as parking, and the presence of harmful and hazardous particles due to ongoing construction in the project.
b. The Opposite Party continued to demand and collect arbitrary maintenance charges, despite having promised three years of free maintenance.
c. On 18.12.2018, the Complainants faced a grave mishap wherein, due to severe water leakage from unfinished construction above their apartment, the walk-in wardrobe ceiling collapsed, resulting in acute damage to the apartment. Furthermore, on 21.10.2020, a 50-litre geyser in the master bedroom bathroom fell from the ceiling.
7. The Complainants repeatedly communicated their grievances to the Opposite Party on various occasions. They also sent an email dated 21.10.2020 along with photographs, to which the Opposite Party responded on 22.10.2020, assuring that the defects would be rectified. However, the Opposite Party failed to adequately address the grievances. Left with no other option, the Complainants vide emails dated 15.10.2020 and 29.11.2020 exercised their right to cancel the allotment and seek a refund of the amounts paid by them. However, the Opposite Party failed to respond to these emails. The Complainants also visited the office of the Opposite Party but the latter refused to entertain their requests.
8. As a result, the Complainants sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2020 detailing their grievances and deficiencies in the project and calling upon the Opposite Party to accept the surrender of the said apartment and refund the entire ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
amount paid by them. The Opposite Party replied to the said legal notice, raising false, frivolous, and arbitrary allegations, stating that a letter dated 30.09.2019 was sent to the Complainants asking them to convey their option to refuse or retain the apartment. The Opposite Party further alleged that the Complainants waived their right to seek cancellation by failing to respond to the said letter. However, no such letter was ever received by the Complainants. The Opposite Party also failed to refund the total amount paid by the Complainants. Consequently, the Complainants approached this Commission, alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
9. The Opposite Party contested the present case and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as they had invested money for profit, which amounts to a commercial purpose. It was further submitted that the Complainants have no cause of action to approach this Commission and that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction as the Complainants neither reside nor personally work for gain within its jurisdiction. The counsel also contended that only RERA authorities have jurisdiction over the matter.
10. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainants are not entitled to any relief as they had approached the Opposite Party after conducting their own due diligence and voluntarily entered into agreements. Therefore, both parties are bound by the terms of the agreement. The counsel also submitted that the Complainants were given the option to retain or refuse the apartment, vide an intimation letter dated 30.09.2019. However, the Complainants allegedly ignored the letter, thereby retaining ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
the apartment by default. Lastly, he submitted that the Complainants are Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
11. The Complainants have filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
12. The Complainants have filed its written argument, relying on the following judgment:
i. Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.
ii. Anila Jain v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Consumer Case No. 2208 of 2017 (decided on 11 Nov 2019).
iii. Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra in Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 (SLP (C)No (s). 1795 of 2017) (decided on 25.03.2019).
iv. Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs DIf Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019 [decided on 24 August 2020].
v. Sanjay Rastogi v. BPTP, CC No. 3580 of 2017, [decided on 18.06.2020].
vi. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri {(Il 2015 CPJ 568 (NC)}.
vii. Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D'Lima & Ors.
((2018) 5 SCC 4421.
13. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
14. The first question for consideration before us is whether Complainants fall in the category of 'consumer' under the consumer protection act, 2019?
15. To comment on this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides as under:
(7) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
10. The above statutory provision makes it clear that a person who buys goods or avail for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment is a consumer.
11. On perusal of record, it is evident from the Apartment Buyer Agreement dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure R-5) that the Complainants had booked said apartment with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had also taken consideration of Rs. 3,95,12,772/- from the Complainants towards the aforesaid booking. Therefore, the Complainants falls under the category of 'consumer' provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
12. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-1122/2018 titled Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainant have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainant are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
13. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission, it flows that it is for the Opposite Party to prove that the apartment purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainants.
ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
14. Moreover, the Hon'ble NCDRC, in a series of judgments, has held that the commercial use of a property depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and that if the commercial use is for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment, such a purchaser of goods would continue to be a consumer. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5858/2017, titled as Rohit Choudhary & Anr. vs. M/s Vipul Ltd., decided on 06.09.2023, and Civil Appeal No. 12322 of 2016, titled as Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shantu Developers & Co., decided on 14.11.2019.
15. Furthermore, on perusal of the record before us, we fail to find any material that shows the Complainants are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to making a profit by the sale of such apartment. A mere allegation that the purchase of the property is for commercial purposes cannot be ground to reject the present consumer complaint.
16. The second issue to be adjudicated is whether the Complainants have cause of action to approach this commission under Consumer Protection Act' 2019. It is imperative to refer to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it is provided as under: -
"(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
17. Analysis of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the cause of action lastly arose on when the Complainants vide letter dated 15.10.2020 exercised their right of cancellation of booked apartment and refund of total amount deposited by the Complainants and the present complaint filed on 02.03.2021 which within two years from the date of cause of action. Therefore, the Complainants are within their right to file the present complaint before this commission.
18. The next question for consideration is whether this commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint?
19. The counsel for the Opposite Party has raised an issue relating to the jurisdiction of this commission to try the present suit.
20. To deal with this issue, we deem it necessary to refer section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Section - 47 Jurisdiction of State Commission-- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction, -
ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
21. Analysis of Section 47 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this commission shall have the territorial jurisdiction where Opposite Party at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action arose.
22. Having discussed the statutory position, the facts of the present case reflect that the registered office of the Opposite Party is at M3M House, 7 C, Doctor's Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001, Since the registered office falls within the territory of Delhi, this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
23. To strength the aforesaid findings, we tend to rely on Rohit Srivastava v.
Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198, wherein it has been held as under:
―It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No. 1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint."
24. Relying on the above settled law, we are of the view that this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.
25. The counsel for the Opposite Party further contended that the project in question is registered under RERA and therefore, this commission cannot adjudicate the present complaint. The law is no more res integra on this issue and is well settled by the dicta in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors." reported in (2021) 3 SCC 241, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"42. In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni, it was held that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act were in addition to the remedies available under specials statutes. The absence of a bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act to the initiation of proceedings before a fora which is not a civil court, read with Section 88 of the RERA Act makes the position clear. Section 18 of the RERA Act specifies that the remedies are "without prejudice to any other remedy available". We place reliance on this judgment, wherein it has been held that:
(SCC p.811, paras 31-32).
"31. Proviso to Section 71(1) of the RERA Act entitles a complainant who had initiated proceedings under the CP Act before the RERA Act came into force, to withdraw the ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
proceedings under the CP Act with the permission of the Forum or Commission and file RCA No.3/2020 Smt. Manju Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Page No.10 of 14 an appropriate application before the adjudicating officer under the RERA Act. The proviso thus gives a right or an option to the complainant concerned but does not statutorily force him to withdraw such complaint nor do the provisions of the RERA Act create any mechanism for transfer of such pending proceedings to authorities under the RERA Act. As against that the mandate in Section 12(4) of the CP Act to the contrary is quite significant.
32. Again, insofar as cases where such proceedings under the CP Act are initiated after the provisions of the RERA Act came into force, there is nothing in the RERA Act which bars such initiation. The absence of bar under Section 79 to the initiation of proceedings before a fora which cannot be called a civil court and express saving under Section 88 of the RERA Act, make the position quite clear. Further, Section 18 itself specifies that the remedy under the said section is "without prejudice to any other remedy available". Thus, the parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act".
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
26. It is clear from the above dicta that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies provided under the special statutes and if the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are initiated after RERA Act came into force, there is nothing in the RERA Act which bars such initiation. Relying on the above settled law, the contention of the Opposite Party that this commission cannot adjudicate the present complaint Complainants on the ground that the project is registered under RERA is devoid of any merit and dismissed.
27. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the Opposite Party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation.
28. The above dicta reflects that any fault, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the nature or manner of performance undertaken by a developer as part of a contractual obligation is considered a deficiency in service.
29. The counsel for the Opposite Party contended that the Complainants were given the option to retain or refuse the apartment vide intimation letter dated 30.09.2019. However, the Complainants allegedly ignored the letter, thereby retaining the apartment by default.
30. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the Complainants booked a ready-to-
move-in residential apartment bearing no. MGE TW-10/11b in the aforementioned project of the Opposite Party. Further, it is evident that the Opposite Party sent a "Permission to Use" letter dated 19.04.2018 and another letter dated 18.05.2018 to the Complainants, wherein the Opposite Party granted permission to the Allottees/Complainants to use and reside in the said apartment temporarily from 19.04.2018 till 10.01.2021 on a leave ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
and license basis, wherein the Allottees/Complainants allowed to physically occupy the apartment while the legal ownership and possession of the apartment remained with the Company until the execution of the Conveyance Deed. Therefore, it is clear that the Complainants had the right, at any point during this 3-year period, i.e., from 19.04.2018 till 10.01.2021, to either retain or refuse the allotment of the apartment.
31. Further, we also deem it appropriate to refer to point no. 4 of the letter dated 18.05.2018 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainants as reproduced below:
"4. Cancellation Policy: The allotment of the Apartment in favour of the Allottee shall stand cancelled and the Buyer's Agreement shall stand terminated and the Allottee shall be entitled to refund of the Own Contribution after adjustment of the Taxes (subject to deduction of applicable taxes, if any, in full and final settlement of the account of the Allottee). The Allottee shall be liable to restore the Said Apartment in its original state (normal wear and tear expected).
32. From the above, it is apparent that if the Complainants chose to surrender the allotment of the said apartment during the period from 19.04.2018 till 10.01.2021, the Opposite Party would cancel the allotment of the apartment in favor of the Complainants and also terminate the Buyer's Agreement. Accordingly, the Complainants would be entitled to a refund of the "Own Contribution" after adjustment of the applicable taxes, in full and final settlement of the account.
33. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to mention that the Complainants, as evident from the emails along with pictures (Annexure C-6) attached from pages ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
124 to 129 of the present Complaint, were facing several shortcomings such as leakage in geysers, flooding of the apartment due to substantial leakage, non-availability of a gas pipeline, absence of various common amenities and the presence of harmful and hazardous particles due to construction in the project. Despite several requests made by the Complainants to the Opposite Party to rectify these issues, the Opposite Party failed to take any steps to address the grievances of the Complainants or to rectify the defects in the said apartment.
34. Moreover, even if the Opposite Party provided the Complainants with the option to retain or refuse the allotment of the said apartment vide letter dated 30.09.2019, it cannot be denied that the Complainants had the opportunity to decide on retention or refusal until 10.01.2021 as the Complainants started facing these shortcomings during the period between 2019 and 2020.
35. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Complainants had the right, during the period from 19.04.2018 till 10.01.2021, to either retain or refuse the allotment of the apartment. The Complainants were well within their rights to surrender the allotment of the said apartment and request a refund of the amount paid by them. Therefore, we find the letter dated 30.09.2019 sent by the Opposite Party regarding retention and refusal to be arbitrary, unjust, and illegal.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold the Opposite Party deficient in providing its services to the Complainants and failing to adhere to its contractual liability, which included the right of the Complainants to surrender the apartment and claim a refund.
37. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount ALLOWED PAGE 18 OF 20 CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
paid by the Complainants i.e., Rs. 3,95,12,772/- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 9% p.a. (Average floating rate of interest charged by the Piramal Housing Finance Ltd. from the Complainants towards the loan) calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 15.12.2025 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 15.02.2026;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 15.02.2026, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
38. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of A. Rs. 5,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainants; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
ALLOWED PAGE 19 OF 20
CC. NO. 50/2021 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
MS. BHAVYA DOSHI AND ANR. VS M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.
39. Further, the Complainants are directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said apartment to the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of the refund amount mentioned in paragraph 37 of this judgment.
40. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
41. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
42. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
15.12.2025 L.R.- ZA ALLOWED PAGE 20 OF 20