State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vikas Jain vs Ansal Housimg Limited , (Formerly Known ... on 8 January, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2024
(Against the order dated 05.07.2024 in C.C. No.146/2022 of the
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi)
1. Vikas Jain
S/o Shri Tarsem Chand Jain
2. Mona Garg
W/o Shri Vikas Jain
Both R/o 10963,
Caminito Alvares,
San Diego, California-92126, USA
Both represented through special
Power of Attorney Holder
Mr. Akash Jain
S/o Mr. Tarsem Chand Jain
R/o 901, Mantova Tower,
Mahagun Moderne,
Sector-78, Noida, U.P. 201305. ... Appellants
Versus
Ansal Housing Limited
(Formerly Known as Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.)
Through its Managing Director/Directors
Having its Registered Office at:
606, 6th Floor, Indra Prakash, 21,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd), PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
For the Appellant s : Mr. Mihir Gujjewar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Advocate
Dated : 08.01.2026
FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 1 of 13
ORDER
1. The present First Appeal No.580 of 2024 has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") assailing the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ("the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.146 of 2022, wherein the complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to in the same manner as before the State Commission. Mr. Vikas Jain and Ms. Mona Garg are the Complainants (Appellants herein), and Ansal Housing Ltd. is the Opposite Party (Respondent herein).
3. Briefly facts of the case are that the Complainants, have applied for allotment of a residential unit in the project "Estella" proposed to be developed by the Opposite Party (OP) in Sector-103, Gurugram, Haryana vide Application dated 25.10.2010. After a lapse of time, the OP issued an Allotment Letter dated 22.06.2012 allotted Unit No.P- 0301 to the Complainants. Thereafter, an Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) was executed between the parties on 20.07.2012. As per Clause 30 of the said Agreement, possession of the unit was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or from the date of obtaining the requisite license. Despite payment of a substantial amount of ₹29,92,295.50/-, even before the execution of the Agreement, the OP failed to hand over possession within the stipulated period and continued to fail to deliver possession thereafter. Over a period of time, the Complainants paid ₹96,46,580/- to the OP as demanded. The Complainants contend that the Agreement contained unilateral, arbitrary and one-sided clauses, leaving them with no option but to sign the same. Although the FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 2 of 13 Complainants opted for a construction-linked payment plan, they received demand letters without disclosure of the actual progress of construction and, despite repeated inquiries regarding progress and delivery of possession, no satisfactory response was provided. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay, the Complainants issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2022 seeking refund of the amount, along with interest. This elicited no response. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.
4. The Opposite Party contested the complaint on the ground of maintainability, contending that the Complainants are not „consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging that the investment was made for commercial gain and that the Complainants are residing in the USA and therefore lacked bona fide intention to reside in the unit. It was further pleaded that there was no cause of action and that any delay, if at all, was attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond the Opposite Party‟s control, including demonetization, orders of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court restricting groundwater extraction in Haryana, and directions of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal halting construction activities in the Delhi-NCR region. The Opposite Party thus denied any delay in possession or deficiency in service.
5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.07.2024 allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under: -
"24. 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 paid by the Complainants i.e., Rs. 96,46,580/- along with simple interest as per the following arrangement:FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 3 of 13
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 05.07.2024 (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 05.09.2024;
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 05.09.2024, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which each instalment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
25. 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. 4,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainants; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-."
6. The Opposite Party did not file any appeal against the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the State Commission. Consequently, the findings and directions contained therein attained finality qua the Opposite Party.
7. Being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, the Complainants preferred the present First Appeal No.580 of 2024 seeking enhancement of relief. Notwithstanding the fact that it was the Complainant who was in Appeal, this Commission while disposing the First Appeal No.580/2024 vide Order 07.01.2025 reduced the liability of OP with respect to the quantum of compensation:FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 4 of 13
"I. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the complainant Rs. 96,46,580/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond two months, the interest payable for the entire period shall be @12% per annum. II. The Order for payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Complainant by the Opposite Party towards mental agony, harassment is set aside.
III. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-as costs towards cost of litigation.
8. Thereafter, the Complainants filed M.A. No.49 of 2025 seeking modification of the order dated 07.01.2025 on the ground of an inadvertent error in the direction relating to commencement of interest. The said application was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2025, whereby it was directed as under:
"Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. For the reasons stated in the MA and perusal of records, due to the inadvertent typographical error in allowing the refund, alongwith compensation in the form of interest for the period from the date of the order dated 05.07.2024 till the date of payment is modified as under:
FOR: "The Opposite Party is directed to refund the complainant Rs. 96,46,580/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond two months, the interest payable for the entire period shall be @ 12% per annum."
Be Read As: "The Opposite Party is directed to refund the complainant Rs. 96,46,580/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of the deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this order dated 25.02.2025. In the event of delay beyond two months, the interest payable for the entire period shall be @12% per annum."
With these directions, MA/49/2025 is disposed of."
FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 5 of 139. Aggrieved by the modification order dated 25.02.2025, the OP Builder approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi by filing CM(M) No.1340 of 2025 along with connected applications. The Hon‟ble High Court, vide order dated 31.07.2025 has directed as under:
"12. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the present petition is disposed of with request to learned NCDRC to consider the aforesaid application MA/49/2025 filed by appellant/applicant Mr. Vikas Jain afresh and for the aforesaid purpose, the parties are directed to appear before learned NCDRC on 20.08.2025.
10. Thereafter, the Appellants/Complainants have filed M.A. No.402 of 2025 seeking early hearing of the matter. This Commission, vide order dated 03.10.2025 heard learned counsels for both the parties with respect to MA/49/2025 and MA/402/2025 in detail and passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsels for both the parties in detail with respect to their grievances and carefully perused the records. It is the grievance of the OP that the order dated 07.01.2025 was modified without affording opportunity to OP of being present and to be heard.
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the respective date of deposit as well as compensation awarded by the learned State Commission towards mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-.
After due considerations of submissions made by both the parties and careful perusal of records, the interest liability of the OP towards the amount deposited by the Complainant amounting to Rs. 96,46,580/-commences from the respective date of deposit till the date of final payment @ 9% per annum if the amount was paid within two months from the date of the order i.e. 07.01.2025. In the event of delay, the interest liability shall be @ 12% per annum for the entire period. At the same time, the order of learned State Commission granting further compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony and harassment is set aside.
With these directions, MA/402/2025 is disposed of."FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 6 of 13
11. Being aggrieved, the Respondent/OP again filed CM(M) 2414/2025, CM Appl. 78527/2025 & 78526/2025 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi against the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by this Commission. The Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed the following order:
"1. This is second round before this Court. The petitioner has assailed order dated 03.10.2025 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Learned counsel for respondents appearing on advance intimation accepts notice and in all fairness, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable.
2. It appears that vide order dated 07.01.2025, the NCDRC in appeal modified the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the SCDRC, after which the present respondent filed a modification application on 10.02.2025, which by the present petitioner before this Court, broadly on the ground that the was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2025 by the NCDRC, thereby modifying the order dated 07.01.2025. The said order dated 25.02.2025 was challenged said modification was carried out by the NCDRC without hearing the disposed of the CM(M) 1340/2025, thereby requesting the NCDRC to present petitioner, By way of order dated 31.07.2025, the predecessor bench consider the modification application afresh.
3. In the above circumstances, both sides appeared before the NCDRC and the present petitioner also filed a reply to the modification application, which culminated into the order impugned in the present case.
4. But, the impugned order is completely silent about the challenges raised by the present petitioner to the modification application. It is completely unreasoned order. Once the matter was remanded back to the NCDRC to decide afresh for the reason that the modification was carried out without hearing the present petitioner, it was expected that the NCDRC should have heard the present petitioner before reiterating its earlier order. Hearing a party in any lis is not simply mentioning in the order that the party concerned has been heard. The adjudicator, be it regular FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 7 of 13 courts or special tribunals, must disclose in the order the arguments advanced and the reasons for which those arguments are accepted or rejected. The purpose behind a reasoned order is that the superior court while examining the legality or correctness of the order must be able to ascertain as to what went through mind of the adjudicator while passing the impugned order. In the present case, there is not even a whisper of any arguments advanced on behalf of the present petitioner and the reasons for which those arguments were being rejected by the NCDRC. Right to effective and fair hearing has been bruised in the impugned order.
5. It is under these circumstances that with consent of both sides the impugned order is set aside and the NCDRC is directed to hear both sides afresh on the modification application and pass a reasoned order from which it can be deciphered as to why those arguments are accepted or rejected. The matter is being remanded back for the second time to the NCDRC. Both sides shall appear before the NCDRC on 18.12.2025 at 10:30am. Keeping in mind the time already spent in this exercise, the NCDRC is also directed to finally dispose of the modification application within four weeks from today.
6. Accordingly, the petition and the accompanying applications stand disposed of. Copy of this order be immediately dispatched to the NCDRC for compliance."
12. The matter was listed on 18.12.2025 and both the parties were afforded opportunity to file brief synopsis of contentions. The learned counsels for both the parties were heard in detail afresh on M.A. No.49/2025 seeking modification of the order of this Commission dated 07.01.2025 in F.A. No.580/2024 on 07.01.2026 and today.
13. The learned counsel for Appellants/ Complainants argued that the Complainants had entered into an Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) with the Respondent for purchase of Unit No. P-0301 in the project "Estella", Gurugram, for a total sale consideration of FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 8 of 13 ₹92,19,999/- and paid substantial amount well within time. However, despite expiry of the contractual period for delivery of possession on 20.07.2015, the OP/Respondent failed to hand over possession, compelling the Complainants to seek refund with compensation. He asserted that the learned State Commission vide order dated 05.07.2024 rightly directed for refund of the amount paid, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit, compensation of Rs.4,00,000 and Rs.50,000 as costs of litigation. On Appeal by the Complainant for enhancement of compensation, this Commission vide order dated 07.01.2025 was in fact reduced by setting aside the compensation of Rs.4,00,000. Further, it was inadvertently recorded the commencement of interest from the date of the order. According to learned counsel for the Complainant/ Appellant, the said direction was contrary to settled law and resulted in grave prejudice, as the Respondent had retained the Complainants‟ money for nearly 14-15 years without delivering possession. Further, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000 awarded was also set aside, notwithstanding the fact that it was the Complainant alone who was in Appeal. It was further argued that the modification sought in M.A. No.49 of 2025 was limited in nature and intended only to correct an apparent error, without reopening the merits of the appeal. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 to contend that, in cases of inordinate delay, interest on refund must ordinarily run from the respective dates of deposit so as to prevent unjust enrichment of the builder. He further states that, merely because the Complainant had filed an Appeal, he suffered adversely and seeks to withdraw the Appeal itself.
FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 9 of 1314. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party vehemently opposed the modification application, contending that the order dated 07.01.2025 was a final and binding order consciously passed by this Commission, and that the direction regarding payment of interest from the date of the order was neither accidental nor inadvertent. It was argued that the modification sought would amount to a substantive review of the order, which is impermissible in law in view of the limited scope of Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was further argued that the modification application was barred by limitation and was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. The order of this Commission dated 07.01.2025 was a consent order and could not have been so modified without OP consent. He asserted that the delay in handing over possession was attributable to circumstances beyond the OP control, including regulatory restrictions and insolvency-related proceedings, and therefore no higher or retrospective interest could be fastened upon the OP/ Respondent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s MSN Woodtech, Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2002/2025, passed on 09.09.2025 to submit that a concluded order cannot be reopened under the guise of correction or modification.
15. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties. The sequence of proceedings culminating in remands by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, and the scope of the present application i.e. M.A. No.49/2025 seeking modification of the order dated 07.01.2025 were also given careful consideration.
FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 10 of 1316. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Respondent/Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the unit in question within the stipulated contractual period agreed between the parties and OP continued to retain the amounts paid by the Complainants for over a decade. The liability of the Respondent to refund the principal amount of ₹96,46,580/- has attained finality, as the OP chose not to challenge the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned State Commission. It is undisputed that the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the State Commission was challenged only by the Complainant by the filing the Appeal before this Commission. The only limited controversy which survives for consideration in the present proceedings pertains to the commencement point of interest on the refunded amount.
17. The contention of the OP/Respondent that the order dated 07.01.2025 was a "consent order" is untenable. Bare perusal of the order dated 07.01.2025 reveals that, in the absence of the OP complying with the order of the State Commission dated 05.07.2024, the liability of the OP to pay compensation in the form of interest @ 9% per annum already stood crystalised. While disposing of the Appeal, vide order dated 07.01.2025 this Commission had in fact reduced the compensation payable by the OP to the Complainant to the extent of Rs.4,00,000. It was, however, inadvertently recorded that the commencement of interest shall be from the date of the order, while vide the order of the State Commission dated 05.07.2024 as well as Experion Developers Pvt Lts Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 dated 17.04.2022 relied upon by this commission in the order dated 07.01.2025 intended to award compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainant form the date of deposit till the date of final payment.
FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 11 of 1318. It is well settled that the power of this Commission to correct an error apparent on the face of the record is not confined to mere typographical mistakes, but extends to rectifying manifest errors which, if allowed to stand, would result in miscarriage of justice. The correction sought by the Complainants did not amount to any substantive re-adjudication of the appeal, but merely aligns the operative direction with the settled principles governing restitution and unjust enrichment. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 has unequivocally held that where a builder fails to deliver possession within the agreed time, the allottee is entitled to refund along with interest from the dates of deposit, as the builder cannot be permitted to enjoy the consumer‟s money without consideration.
19. The plea of limitation and absence of power of review under Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is also misconceived. The present application does not seek a review on merits, but correction of an inadvertent error which crept into the operative portion of the order dated 07.01.2025.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the considered view that the modification sought by the Complainants deserves to be allowed, and the compensation in the form of simple interest on the amount deposited ought to run from the respective dates of deposit till the date of final payment. At the same time, notwithstanding the fact that it was the only Complainant who was in Appal, this Commission order setting aside the award of Rs.4,00,000 to the Complainant, since it constituted compensation beyond interest already awarded is also appropriate and needs no interference.
FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 12 of 1321. Accordingly, M.A. No.49/2025 is disposed of with modification to the operative portion of the order dated 07.01.2025 to the following extent:
The Respondent/Opposite Party is directed to refund to the Complainants a sum of ₹96,46,580/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum calculated from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual payment, provided the entire amount is paid within one month from the date of this order. In the event of default beyond the said period, the Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the entire period.
22. The direction for payment of litigation costs of ₹50,000/- as awarded earlier shall remain unchanged.
23. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
......................................................... (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER ......................................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.) MEMBER bs FA No. 580 of 2024 Page 13 of 13