State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sandeep Sahijwani & Anr. vs Godrej Premimum Builders Private ... on 9 December, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/1203/2019
WITH
NC/IA/15397/2024 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)
NC/IA/15396/2024 (ADDITIONAL FACT)
NC/IA/5565/2025 (EARLY HEARING)
SANDEEP SAHIJWANI & ANR.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
GODREJ PREMIMUM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - Godrej Bhawan, 4th Floor. 4A Home Street Mumbai-400001 ,
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
MR. RISHI KAPOOR, ADVOCATE WITH MR. PRASHANT ARORA, ADVOCATE WITH
MR. AKHILESH, ADVOCATE
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
MR. SUDHIR MAKKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. KAPIL MADAN, ADVOCATE AND
MR. SAURABH GAUBA, MS. AADHYA, MR. HARSH VARDHAN, MS. SANYA,
ADVOCATES.
DATED: 09/12/2025
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainants booked an apartment in the project "Godrej Summit" situated at Sector 104, Gurugram, Haryana. Pursuant to an application dated 09.11.2012, the Opposite Party issued an Allotment Letter dated 03.03.2013 in favour of the Complainants, allotting Apartment No. GODSUMG 1502 on the 14th floor of Tower-G, measuring 1269 sq. ft., at a total sale consideration of Rs. 95,45,110/- calculated @ Rs. 6,750/- per sq. ft., excluding the statutory charges. An Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed on 13.05.2013, wherein it was agreed that possession would be delivered within 46 months from the date of allotment, with a further grace period of six months, i.e., by 02.01.2017. The Complainants made timely payments, totalling Rs. 99,22,379.51/-, as per the agreed schedule. However, the Opposite Party issued the possession letter only on 26.06.2017 and failed to honour several representations made in the brochure and Agreement, including the promise of a 24-meter wide access road to the Apartment.
3. The Complainants lodged their grievance with the Opposite Party on 10.12.2017, highlighting that the offered possession did not conform to the brochure and agreed terms. However, the Opposite Party responded only to demand the balance payment without addressing the grievance. The Complainants made their final payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 07.02.2018. The Complainants had availed a housing loan of Rs. 32,50,000/- from HDFC Bank on 02.07.2013 and had paid interest @10.4% per annum, aggregating Rs. 19,15,333.33/- as on date. The Opposite Party was thus also liable to refund the interest paid to the bank. The Complaint also alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party in charging separately for parking. Aggrieved with the same, the present Complaint was filed with the following prayers -
"a) direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,18,37,712.00/- including the deposit amount of Rs.99,22,379/- and Rs.19,15,333/- towards interest paid by the complainant to bank till date.
b) to pay future interest and pendente lite interest @20% per annum on the aforesaid amount from date of filing of present complaint till its realization."
4. The Opposite Party has filed its Written Statement and resisted the Complaint. It has denied all the material averments made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has averred that the Complainants are not "Fonsumers" under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the flat was booked for speculative investment purposes and also that the Complaint is barred by limitation as possession was offered on 26.06.2017, whereas the Complaint was filed after expiry of the two-year period; That the Complainants booked Unit No. GODSUMG 1502 in Tower G at the project "Godrej Summit" at Sector 104, Gurugram via Application dated 09.11.2012, after which the Allotment Letter dated 03.03.2013 was issued, and the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 27.05.2013 was executed. The Flat was booked under a construction-linked payment plan for Rs. 95,45,110/-, and possession was offered on 26.06.2017 upon receipt of the Occupation Certificate, with over 300 other buyers already taking possession; That invoices were raised in accordance with the construction milestones and payment schedule. However, the Complainants have neither taken possession nor cleared their dues, and instead raised baseless objections relating to non-construction of a 24-meter access road, which the was not within the Opposite Party's scope or responsibility;
5. The Opposite Party has further averred in its Written Statement that the Final Development Plan of 2021 and the Sector Plan of 2011 issued by Haryana State Authorities clearly earmarked a 24- meter sub-arterial road falling outside the licensed project land as part of the external development works to be executed by the State. The Opposite Party averred that its obligation extended only to constructing the portion of the 24-meter road within its licensed land, which has been fulfilled. In support, the Opposite Party relies on Clause M of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, which describes the 24-meter access as a "proposed" road, confirming that its construction responsibility lay with the Authorities; That its associate entity Magic Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has filed Writ Petition No. CWP 6187 of 2018 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking directions against the State Authorities for construction of the external portion of the road; That the Complainants were fully aware of these facts, and there was no representation by the Opposite Party to the contrary. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to them on this count. The Complaint is also challenged on grounds of concealment of material facts. The Opposite Party alleges breach by the Complainants in failing to take possession and in defaulting on timely payments as per the Agreement. Reference is also made to the Complainant's own email dated 14.02.2018 requesting waiver of interest, which is said to reflect an attempt to escape liability. The present Complaint is therefore alleged to be a mala fide effort to exit the project due to a fall in market prices.
6. Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainant to the Written Statement by the Opposite Party has been filed; It has been averred in the Rejoinder that the Flat was booked solely for residential use and not for investment purposes, and hence they are clearly "Consumers" under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further contended that the Complaint is well within limitation, as the cause of action is continuing due to non-delivery of the Apartment in accordance with the terms promised, including the absence of the assured 24-meter wide access road. The Complainants dispute the Opposite Party's claim of timely construction and deny that the Occupation Certificate (OC) was duly obtained or applied for by the Opposite Party itself. It is submitted that the Opposite Party did not deliver possession within the stipulated period of 46 months plus a 6-month grace period, and when it eventually issued the possession letter dated 26.06.2017, the flat was not in conformity with the agreed terms. They also deny the Claim that over 300 buyers have taken possession and that amenities are fully developed, and assert that other consumers have filed similar complaints, with at least one resulting in a refund Order by this Commission. As to the issue of the 24-meter access road, the Complainants reject the Claim that its construction outside the project land was solely the responsibility of the State authorities. The Opposite Party clearly represented in its brochure that the road would be fully constructed and would provide direct access to the Dwarka Expressway. The reliance placed by the Opposite Party on Clause M of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement referring to the road as "proposed" is said to be misleading and contrary to its earlier representations. The Complainants argue that this amounts to misrepresentation and fraud, and reiterate that the absence of the promised access road and delay in possession constitute serious deficiencies in service. They further dispute the assertion that the Opposite Party has acted in a "customer centric" manner or taken any proactive steps such as filing a Writ Petition, pointing out that no effective measures were taken to resolve the issue.
7. It has been further averred in the Rejoinder that allegations of default on the Complainants' part are false, and asserted that all payments were made as per schedule. The reliance by the Opposite Party on an email dated 14.02.2018 seeking waiver of penal interest is explained as a result of the Opposite Party's own delays and deficiencies, and does not indicate any wrongdoing by the Complainants. It is specifically denied that the Complaint is mala fide or that there has been any concealment of material facts. On the contrary, it is submitted that the Opposite Party had violated its obligations under the Apartment Buyer's Agreement and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by failing to deliver the promised Apartment in the promised condition and timeframe. The Complainants reject the contention that the relief sought is not maintainable and reiterate that the Complaint is filed in good faith, is within jurisdiction, and deserves to be allowed with appropriate relief.
8. Evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Complainants by Complainant No. 1- Mr. Sandeep Sahijwani; Evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party by Ms. Surabhi Kapur, Authorized Representative of M/s Godrej Projects Developments Ltd.
9. Heard Ld. Counsel for Complainants and the Opposite Party, and perused the material available on record.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Complainants has argued that that despite clear contractual representations, the Opposite Party neither delivered the promised 24-meter-wide access road to the Dwarka Expressway nor adhered to the timelines, and instead sought to extract the balance payment without curing the deficiency, thereby causing financial loss to the Complainants and committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; That the argument of the Opposite Party that responsibility to construct the external portion of the 24-meter road lay with the State Authorities is false as the Opposite Party had unequivocally advertised the existence of the 24- meter road as a key selling point to induce customers. The failure to provide such access, while still demanding full payment, constitutes a clear breach of the Agreement and a deceptive practice. This conduct forced the Complainants to incur interest obligations @10.4% per annum on their home loan, which the Opposite Party is liable to reimburse. In support, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Commission in "Sunita Malhotra v. Godrej Projects Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Complaint No. 1011 of 2019", wherein it was held that despite the offer of possession, the failure to construct the promised 24-meter-wide road for over seven years amounted to deficiency in service, especially when homebuyers were made to access their Apartments through a narrow and encroached revenue road instead. The Commission had therein directed a refund of the entire sale consideration, noting that the buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely.
11. Ld. Counsel for Complainants has further argued that they place reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711", "Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D' Lima (2018) 5 SCC 442", "Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan (2019) 5 SCC 725", and "Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, 2019 (6) SCALE 462", where it was held that buyers cannot be forced to accept possession when developers fail to honour key representations and timelines. Additionally, reliance is placed on "Aditya Bhutani & Anr. v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Complaint No. 1099 of 2019", where this Commission again held the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service in relation to the same "Godrej Summit" project. It is submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by these precedents and hence, the Complaint deserves to be allowed in its entirety with appropriate relief.
12. Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party has argued that regarding the issue of the 24-meter access road, the responsibility to construct the external portion of the road lay with the State Authorities, and not with the Developer. Clause M of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement and the brochure clearly indicate that the road was "proposed". The Opposite Party was only obligated to construct the internal 24-meter road, which it did. To compel the Authorities, the Developer even filed a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is further submitted that the Sectoral Plan and License terms confirm this limited responsibility. Hence, the Complainants' allegations regarding the external 24-meter road are an afterthought, particularly as no such grievance was raised when seeking an extension for making balance payment via email dated 14.02.2018; That the Complaint is not maintainable after a valid offer of possession was made within the agreed timeframe. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019", has held that a buyer is bound to take possession once construction is complete and Occupation Certificate is issued. In the present case, such conditions stand fulfilled. Hence, the Complainants' attempt to seek refund is a wrongful evasion of contractual obligations, and amounts to taking advantage of their own wrong. Moreover, the Complainants had requested interest waiver post the possession offer, indicating their willingness to take possession, and negating any contemporaneous objection to the road issue.
13. Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party has further argued that the forfeiture of 20% of the Basic Sale Price as Earnest Money is contractually valid under Clause 2.6 of the Buyer's Agreement, which defines it as a genuine pre-estimate of damages. This Clause has not been challenged by the Complainants. Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party places reliance on "Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. Anil Karlekar, Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023", and "K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima, Civil Appeal No. 5822/2025", to contend that such Clauses are enforceable and not penal in nature. Reference is also made to "Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554" and "Ashok Dewan v. Ireo Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 1539 of 2016", affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.06.2020, which upheld the Developers' rights to forfeit earnest money in the event of default. In response to the judgments cited by the Complainants, the Opposite Party argues that all such decisions in "Sunita Malhotra v. Godrej Projects Ltd." (supra) and "Aditya Bhutani v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd." (supra) have been stayed or overturned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on those decisions. The Opposite Party asserts that it has acted as a customer-centric Developer and fulfilled all contractual and statutory obligations. The Complaint, being devoid of merit and filed solely to avoid deduction of earnest money, deserves outright dismissal, or in the alternative, the Complainants should be directed to take possession or, forfeit the earnest money under Clause 8 read with Clause 5.4 of the Agreement.
14. It is imperative to clarify at the outset that no reliance is being placed on any earlier judgments in respect of the "Godrej Summit" project, which have been brought to our notice by either party, as the said decisions are presently under stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the adjudication herein proceeds on the strength of the facts, pleadings, and submissions as emerging in this specific case.
15. The core grievance of the Complainants pertains to the absence of the promised 24-meter- wide access road to the project, which was, according to them, a key inducement in their decision to invest in the subject Apartment. This Claim is not unfounded. A perusal of the brochure relied upon by the Complainants (Pg. 23 of the Paperbook) clearly depicts a "Master Layout Plan"
showing the proposed 24-meter road leading directly into the project. Further, Clause 'M' of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, which is relied upon by the Opposite Party itself, expressly states that the project "has proper access through a proposed 24 meter wide road", thereby reinforcing the existence and criticality of this representation.
16. The record further reveals that the Complainants specifically raised this issue of the 24-meter road through an email dated 10.12.2017. However, the Opposite Party has failed to place on record any contemporaneous reply to this grievance. Significantly, in its Written Statement and arguments before this Commission, the Opposite Party has not denied the receipt of this grievance, nor has it demonstrated that any substantial response was given addressing this concern. The conspicuous silence of the Opposite Party on this issue at the relevant time casts serious doubt on the genuineness of its present defence.
17. The contention that the 24-meter road was merely a "proposed" facility forming part of the Sector Plan issued by State Authorities, and not the developer's responsibility, does not hold merit in light of the overall representation made in the brochure and the Buyer's Agreement. The depiction of the road as part of the Master Layout Plan intended for public viewing, and the corresponding contractual clause affirming "proper access through a proposed road", clearly created a legitimate expectation in the mind of the average Consumer that such road connectivity would be available in practical terms at the time of possession. It is not sufficient for the Opposite Party to now disown responsibility on the ground that the external portion of the road fell outside its licensed land. Even assuming that the State Authorities were responsible for external development, the obligation of the Developer to proactively ensure that the project was accessible as promised cannot be abdicated merely by filing a Writ Petition that is still pending, with no effective outcome to date. Mere initiation of legal proceedings does not absolve a party from performance of its contractual obligations, especially when the promised feature was used to induce investment.
18. Furthermore, this Commission is of the opinion that a material misrepresentation was made by the Opposite Party by depicting the 24-meter road in its layout plan, and subsequently failing to deliver the same or provide any effective alternative. Even if some portion of the road was beyond the developer's control, this ought to have been clearly disclosed at the time of booking. The failure to make such disclosure, coupled with silence upon an explicit grievance, constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Act.
19. Consequently, this Commission is of the view that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and the Complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited, along with compensation in the form of interest @ 9% p.a in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Experion Developers (P) Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, (2022) 15 SCC 286". The relevant extracts of the said Order are set out as below -
"32. 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 (P) Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda [DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda, (2020) 16 SCC 318] and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interests shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.
33. 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."
20. With the aforesaid discussion, the Opposite Party is directed to -
(a) Refund the deposited amount of Rs. 99,22,379/- to the Complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of respective deposits till realisation, within six weeks from the date of communication of this Order, failing which the outstanding amount(s) to be paid shall attract an interest @ 12% p.a. till the time of final realization;
(b) The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainants towards litigation costs;
21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
..................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESIDING MEMBER ..................
DR. SADHNA SHANKER MEMBER