January 28, 2026 : The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Sahaj Ankur Realtors to pay ₹3.91 crore with interest to three Mumbai tenants after holding the developer guilty of deficiency in service in a long-running redevelopment dispute. The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (Member) on 27 January 2026 in Consumer Complaint No. NC/CC/238/2019.

Background: Redevelopment Promise and Indemnity Undertaking

The complainants, tenants of Flats 3 and 4 in Building A at Madhav Baug, Andheri (East), had entered into a registered Agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation dated 20 September 2013 with Sahaj Ankur Realtors.

Under the agreement, the developer undertook to allot them Flat No. 801 admeasuring 700 sq. ft. carpet area with podium parking within 24 months from issuance of the Commencement Certificate, with a six-month grace period. Of this, 650 sq. ft. was free, while 50 sq. ft. was to be purchased at ₹22,800 per sq. ft., aggregating ₹11.40 lakh, of which ₹6 lakh was paid in advance.

The agreement also required the developer to furnish a ₹2 crore performance bank guarantee, pay ₹5 lakh as dislocation compensation, and provide monthly transit rent of ₹25,000 with escalation. These obligations were not fully complied with. Due to delays in approvals and commencement, a Deed of Indemnity-cum-Undertaking dated 10 January 2015 was executed. The complainants handed over vacant possession on 12 January 2015.

Under this indemnity deed, the developer agreed to obtain approval for Flat No. 801 within six months. Failing that, it undertook to allot two alternate flats, Nos. 301 and 302, admeasuring 650 sq. ft. and 667 sq. ft., respectively. If neither the original nor alternate flats could be delivered, the developer would pay market value for 1,317 sq. ft. carpet area plus 25% compensation.

Alternate Flats Sold to Third Party

The dispute escalated when it emerged that Flats 301 and 302 had been sold to a third party under a registered agreement dated 17 October 2017.

The Commission held that the sale of these alternate flats during the subsistence of the indemnity arrangement and without the complainants’ consent constituted a “clear and fundamental breach” of the undertaking.

It also noted that approvals for Flat No. 801 were not obtained within the stipulated six months. Plans furnished in October 2018 depicted the flat as a refuge area, reinforcing the complainants’ grievance that the contractual promise was never fulfilled.

Maintainability and Consumer Status Upheld

Rejecting the builder’s objection that the complainants were not “consumers”, the Commission held that both the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement and the indemnity deed were intrinsically connected to the redevelopment service.

Since the complainants had surrendered possession and paid consideration for additional area, they fell within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The plea that the indemnity deed was unenforceable for want of registration was also rejected. The Commission clarified that the complainants were not seeking specific performance of a property transfer, but compensation for admitted breach and deficiency in service.

Compensation Based on 2015–16 Circle Rate

Considering the admitted delay and the sale of alternate flats, the Commission held that directing possession at this stage would not be just or efficacious. Instead, it awarded monetary compensation based on the 2015–16 circle rate.

The applicable circle rate of ₹19,829 per sq. ft. was accepted. After converting carpet area to built-up area (1,580.4 sq. ft.), the value was assessed at ₹3,13,37,751.60. Adding 25% contractual compensation of ₹78,34,437.90, the total payable amount was fixed at ₹3,91,72,189.50.

The Commission directed Opposite Party No. 1 to pay the said amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, along with ₹50,000 as litigation costs, within eight weeks. In case of default, the amount will carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of default. The complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed for lack of privity of contract.

Case Title: Pushpa Jagannath Shetty & Ors. v. Sahaj Ankur Realtors & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. NC/CC/238/2019
Date of Decision: 27 January 2026