The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in its recent judgments has reiterated that builders must deliver projects as per the amenities promised in their brochures or refund buyers in case of deficiencies. Two significant rulings—Vaibhav Garg vs M3M India Ltd. (28 August 2024) and Vaibhav Saha and Anr. vs Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd. (5 September 2024)—highlight the rights of buyers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in cases where the builder fails to deliver on the promises made at the time of sale.
Delay in Construction and Missing Amenities: Vaibhav Garg vs M3M India Ltd.
In the Vaibhav Garg case, the buyers sought a refund and compensation from M3M India Ltd. due to delays in the construction of the project. The NCDRC ruled in favor of the buyers, noting that although the builder had obtained an Occupation Certificate, key amenities like the clubhouse and convenience shopping facilities, as advertised in the project’s brochure, were not completed at the time of the offer of possession.
The NCDRC clarified that the completion of the project as per the advertised amenities is mandatory, even if the occupation certificate is granted. Buyers are entitled to a refund if the amenities, which are crucial selling points, are not provided as promised.
The court also referred to its earlier ruling in Rajan Handa vs M3M India Developers Ltd., which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the principle that buyers have a right to a refund with interest in case of non-completion of the project as advertised.
Similar Ruling: Vaibhav Saha vs Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd.
In another case involving Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd., the NCDRC passed a similar order. Buyers sought a refund under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that the developer had failed to provide the amenities as advertised. The NCDRC ruled that the amenities mentioned in the brochure were an essential part of the project’s marketing, and in their absence, buyers had the right to demand a refund.
The NCDRC drew parallels with the earlier decision in Rajiv Singhal vs. Godrej Projects Development Ltd., which also emphasized that developers cannot disclaim responsibility for the non-completion of amenities that were integral to the project’s sale.
Builders Held Accountable for Advertised Promises
These rulings by the NCDRC are a significant step in protecting the rights of homebuyers. The judgments underscore that buyers can seek refunds if key amenities, as promised in project brochures, are not delivered. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 empowers buyers to demand accountability from builders, ensuring that the real estate sector upholds transparency and fairness.