NCDRC Grants Refund with 9% Interest to Homebuyers, Rejects Builder Misconduct Claims in Gurgaon Housing Dispute

June 15, 2026 : In a significant ruling concerning a long-pending real estate dispute, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a Gurgaon-based real estate developer to refund the entire amount deposited by two homebuyers along with 9% annual interest. However, the Commission rejected allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices against the builder, holding that the buyers had failed to comply with the agreed payment schedule and were themselves in default.

The dispute arose from bookings made by Neeraj Chaudhary and Monia Chaudhary in the “Ourania” residential project located on Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. The complainants had approached the NCDRC alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by M/s Neelkanth Township Planner Pvt. Ltd. and its director after the allotment of their residential units was cancelled. They sought substantial compensation and challenged the cancellation of the flats.

According to the complaint, the buyers had initially intended to purchase a villa but were persuaded by the developer to invest in two apartments, a 2-BHK and a 3-BHK unit. They claimed to have paid substantial booking amounts and later obtained a housing loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited, a portion of which was disbursed to the developer. The complainants alleged that despite making payments, construction progress at the site was unsatisfactory and repeated demands for instalments were raised even though the project had not reached the promised stage of development.

The developer, however, strongly disputed these allegations. It contended that the buyers had paid only a small fraction of the total sale consideration and had repeatedly defaulted on instalments under the Construction Linked Payment Plan. According to the builder, only around Rs. 26 lakh had been paid against the agreed consideration for the two apartments, while substantial dues remained outstanding. The company maintained that the allotments were lawfully cancelled in accordance with the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement after repeated defaults by the purchasers.

During the proceedings, the Commission examined the payment schedule, the Apartment Buyer’s Agreements and the tripartite arrangement involving LIC Housing Finance. The Commission found that the complainants had failed to adhere to the contractual payment obligations. It noted that although LIC Housing Finance had sanctioned a housing loan, only a limited amount was released and paid to the developer, while the remaining instalments remained unpaid.

Addressing the central issue in the case, the Commission observed that the cancellation of the allotments was a consequence of the buyers’ default and not an instance of unfair trade practice. The Commission categorically held that “the complainant failed to adhere to the said payment schedule” and therefore “the question of any unfair trade practice does not arise.”

The order also records that after cancellation, the developer cleared the outstanding loan-related liabilities and subsequently transferred the properties to third-party purchasers. The Commission noted that no interim injunction had ever been obtained by the complainants to restrain either cancellation or subsequent sale of the flats. As a result, there was no legal impediment preventing the developer from dealing with the properties during the pendency of the consumer complaint.

Importantly, the Commission observed that the complainants had also initiated separate civil proceedings concerning the same property. While considering the effect of subsequent transfers, the Commission held that the buyers, being defaulters under the agreement, could not claim cancellation of the allotments to be set aside as a matter of right. The Commission further remarked that although principles such as the doctrine of lis pendens may arise in appropriate circumstances, the facts of the present case did not justify restoration of the allotments.

The Commission also took note of an earlier settlement proposal made by the developer during the proceedings. The builder had offered to refund the deposited amount along with reasonable interest, but the complainants declined the proposal and pressed for final adjudication. Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that refund was the only legally sustainable relief available in the circumstances of the case. It held that the claim for compensation equivalent to double the basic sale price was “misconceived” and unsupported by the facts on record.

Exercising its powers under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the NCDRC partially allowed the complaint and directed the developer to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until actual payment. The complaint was accordingly disposed of.

The ruling reinforces an important principle in consumer and real estate law that homebuyers are entitled to protection against arbitrary conduct by developers, but contractual obligations, particularly payment schedules, must also be honoured. The decision highlights that consumer forums may grant equitable relief in the form of refund and interest even where allegations of unfair trade practices are not established. For both homebuyers and developers, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with contractual terms and timely legal action when disputes arise.

Case Title: Neeraj Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Neelkanth Township Planner Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.