NCDRC Orders Godrej to Refund Rs 89 Lakh in Gurugram Project Case

• Refund of Rs 89.24 lakh ordered with 9% annual interest

• Interest to rise to 12% if builder fails to comply within one month

• Court says buyers cannot wait indefinitely for promised connectivity

In a significant ruling for homebuyers, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Godrej Premium Builders Private Limited to refund Rs 89.24 lakh along with interest to a Gurugram-based consumer, citing the developer’s failure to provide a promised 24-metre-wide access road even after more than a decade.

The order was passed by a bench led by President A P Sahi and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya, which observed that buyers cannot be made to wait endlessly for basic infrastructure that formed a core part of the purchase decision.

The commission ruled that the complainant was fully justified in seeking a refund, as the project still lacks the crucial approach road connecting it to the Dwarka Expressway—a feature prominently highlighted in the project brochure at the time of booking.

What the court held

Allowing the complaint, the NCDRC directed:

• Refund of the entire amount paid by the buyer

• Interest at 9% per annum from the date of each payment

• Compliance within one month of the order

• Interest to increase to 12% per annum in case of default

The commission noted that accessibility was a “vital and integral” promise of the project and its continued absence amounted to clear deficiency in service. It rejected the developer’s argument that responsibility for part of the road lay with government authorities, stating that buyers cannot be burdened with such uncertainties.

The bench also dismissed claims that an alternate internal link or temporary kachcha road could substitute the promised 24-metre permanent access road, adding that such arrangements do not cure the original deficiency.

Background of the case

The complaint was filed by Inderdeep Singh, who booked a residential unit in Godrej Summit, Sector 104, Gurugram, in September 2012. A builder-buyer agreement was signed in March 2013, with possession promised within 49 months, plus a six-month grace period.

Out of a total sale consideration of Rs 90.76 lakh, the buyer had already paid Rs 89.24 lakh. Although the developer issued an offer of possession in June 2017, the consumer alleged that the project was incomplete and unfit for living.

According to the complaint, several essential facilities were missing, including permanent water and electricity connections, functional lifts, internal roads, fire safety systems, and completed common areas. Most critically, the advertised approach road connecting the project to Dwarka Expressway was still unavailable—nearly 14 years after booking.

Buyer’s arguments

Counsel for the complainant told the commission that the possession offer was “illusory and coercive,” as buyers were asked to clear dues and pay maintenance charges without being allowed to properly inspect the site.

They submitted that water supply depended on tankers, electricity was sourced from a neighbouring society, and key amenities like the clubhouse and common facilities remained unfinished. The absence of the promised access road, they argued, defeated the very purpose of purchasing the home.

Builder’s defence rejected

The developer contended that possession was offered within the contractual timeline after obtaining the occupancy certificate in April 2017. It also argued that while the internal stretch of the road had been built, the remaining portion lay outside its licensed area and was the responsibility of state authorities.

The builder cited a pending petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions for land acquisition and road construction. However, the commission ruled that ongoing litigation could not excuse the non-fulfilment of a fundamental promise made to buyers.

Supreme Court proceedings

While acknowledging that similar NCDRC orders had been challenged earlier before the Supreme Court of India, the commission clarified that the apex court had not overturned the factual findings in those matters. It added that settlements in individual cases did not erase the underlying deficiencies in the project.

Proceeding on the merits of this complaint, the NCDRC concluded that the buyer had every right to withdraw from the project due to the prolonged absence of promised connectivity and ordered a full refund with interest.

Also Read: Noida Authority Launches New Plot Schemes: Most Allotments via E-Auction

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Allowing NBCC to Manage Supertech Projects

About H4ENEWS

At H4ENEWS, we are more than just a news portal – we are your ultimate destination for everything related to home decor, real estate, architecture, Kitchen, Bathroom, Vastu, Celebrity, construction and more. Our mission is simple: to keep homeowners, buyers, sellers, real estate enthusiasts, and industry professionals informed with accurate, reliable, and timely news.