Delhi State Commission Directs Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers To Refund Booking Amount For Failing To Execute Buyer's Agreement

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Nitin Sachdeva, booked a residential flat (No. 730 in Tower-8 of the Dream Homes Group Housing Scheme, Sector-5, Green Wood Enclave, Wave City, NH-24, Ghaziabad, U.P.), developed by Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd (Opposite Parties 1 to 4) He paid ₹3,83,166/-, duly acknowledged with receipts by the developer. However, the Opposite Parties neither executed the Buyer's Agreement nor provided any updates regarding the project, despite receiving the amount.

Having found no progress or communication from the developer, the complainant repeatedly tried to contact the Opposite Party and sent emails dated 15.04.2015 and 20.05.2015, requesting a refund of the booking amount with interest. Despite these efforts, there was no response or action. Finding no alternative remedy, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a refund with interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.

The District Commission, after hearing both sides, dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant had failed to make further payments as per the terms of booking, and was therefore not entitled to a refund. The Commission accepted the developer's contention that the complainant had defaulted on payment and found no deficiency in service on the part of Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd

Aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission challenging the District Commission's order.

Contentions of the Complainant:
The complainant contended that the Opposite Party's failure to execute the Buyer's Agreement and refund the booking amount despite repeated requests amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He argued that retaining his hard-earned money without providing any service or justification was illegal and arbitrary.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:
The Opposite Party argued that the complainant had defaulted in making subsequent payments as per demand notices and was thus not entitled to any refund. It asserted that there was a balance amount due from the complainant and, as a result, denied any deficiency in service. The developer also contended that the complaint was not maintainable and sought its dismissal.

Observations and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the developer failed to execute the agreement or refund the booking amount despite requests and did not produce any evidence, such as demand letters or construction progress reports, to justify its claims.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020), the Commission held that failure to fulfil contractual obligations within the stipulated time constitutes a deficiency in service.

The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Chadha Hi-Tech Developers to refund ₹3,83,166/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of each payment till 30.10.2025, provided the refund is made on or before 30.12.2025. In case of default, the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum till actual realization. Furthermore, the Commission directed the Opposite Party to pay ₹50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and ₹50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case Title: Nitin Sachdeva vs Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: 1130/2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Order