NCDRC Orders Godrej to Refund Rs 89 Lakh After 14-Year Wait for Promised Road in Gurgaon

In a significant ruling that underscores the rights of homebuyers against delayed infrastructure promises, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Godrej Premium Builders Private Limited to refund the entire amount of Rs 89.24 lakh paid by a Gurgaon consumer, along with interest. The order comes after a protracted 14-year wait for a promised access road that was never delivered.

The Core of the Complaint

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Inderdeep Singh, who booked a residential unit in the 'Godrej Summit' project in Sector 104, Gurgaon, on September 10, 2012. A builder-buyer agreement was executed on March 25, 2013, stipulating possession within 49 months, including a six-month grace period. Singh paid Rs 89.24 lakh out of the total sale consideration of Rs 90.76 lakh.

Despite an offer of possession dated June 29, 2017, the consumer alleged that the project was incomplete and uninhabitable. Key deficiencies included the absence of a permanent water connection, reliance on tankers for supply, electricity drawn from an adjoining society, and incomplete amenities such as the clubhouse, internal roads, lifts, and fire safety systems. However, the most critical issue was the lack of the promised 24-meter wide road connecting the project to the Dwarka Expressway.

The Commission's Findings and Rationale

A bench comprising Commission President A P Sahi and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya heard the complaint and delivered its verdict on January 27. The NCDRC observed that the complainant could not be expected to wait indefinitely for the connectivity promised back in 2012. The commission emphasized that the obligation to provide the road rested squarely with the developer, Godrej Premium Builders Private Limited and M/s Magic Solutions Private Limited.

The commission noted several key points in its findings:

The promised 24-meter wide road for access to the project, connecting it to the Dwarka Expressway, has not been provided to date, 14 years after the initial booking.
The developer's argument that state authorities are responsible for the road's construction, due to land acquisition issues, cannot excuse the failure to deliver an integral provision of the project as advertised in the brochure.
The accessibility is thus 'eclipsed' as per the promise made, constituting a clear deficiency in service.
The complainant is fully justified in demanding a refund, as the lack of proper access and connectivity, along with other defects, fundamentally defeats the purpose of the purchase.
The pendency of a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, filed by the developer in 2018 seeking directions to state authorities, does not absolve the developer of responsibility, especially with no orders in sight.
The developer's contention that an alternative link road exists for other occupants is a diversion, as photographs filed by the complainant show only a katcha (unpaved) road, which does not fulfill the promised provision.

The Final Order and Directions

Allowing the complaint, the NCDRC issued the following directions:

Refund of the entire amount of Rs 89.24 lakh paid by the consumer.
Interest at 9% per annum from the date of each payment.
Compliance within one month of the order.
In case of default, the interest rate will escalate to 12% per annum.

The commission clarified that earlier NCDRC rulings in similar cases, which had been challenged before the Supreme Court, did not overturn the factual findings of deficiency. It proceeded to decide this complaint on its own merits, citing precedent in several cases where builders were directed to deposit decretal amounts.

Broader Implications for Homebuyers and Developers

This ruling reinforces the principle that developers cannot shift blame to state authorities for failing to deliver promised infrastructure. It highlights the consumer's right to withdraw from a purchase when core promises remain unfulfilled after an unreasonable wait. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for real estate developers to ensure that all advertised amenities, especially critical ones like access roads, are either in place or have clear, actionable plans for completion before marketing projects.

For homebuyers, it underscores the importance of legal recourse through consumer forums when faced with such deficiencies, even in long-pending disputes. The NCDRC's firm stance on refunds with interest in this case may set a precedent for similar grievances across India's real estate sector, where delayed infrastructure is a common complaint.