The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed the Sunworld Vandita Group to refund money to homebuyers of its Yamuna City Sector 22D housing project, following a delay that stretched for around 14 years. The commission ordered the builder to refund the entire deposited amount with 12% annual interest within two months. In case of further delay, the interest rate will increase to 15% per year. Buyers will also receive ₹25,000 each towards litigation costs. The case dates back to 2018, when buyers approached the NCDRC after the project failed to meet its expected delivery timeline.
The project had been allotted land by the YEIDA in 2011, while bookings started in 2012. By 2013, several buyers had already deposited a substantial portion of the flat cost. The commission rejected the developer's explanation that farmer protests and litigation were responsible for the delays, emphasising the builder's responsibility to obtain necessary approvals and comply with applicable requirements. The order is significant for homebuyers in the Yamuna Expressway property market, highlighting the importance of checking project approvals, land status, RERA details, construction progress and the developer's delivery record before purchasing.
The apartment was booked in 2012 at a basic sale price of ₹6,428.50 per sq ft, making the basic sale price around ₹1.67 crore, apart from other applicable charges. As reported by Mint, the Builder Buyer Agreement was signed in November 2012, under which the developer was required to complete construction within three years from the date of execution. The buyer made payments totalling ₹1,72,93,048.76 towards the apartment, relying on the developer's assurances to obtain a home loan for the purchase.
After receiving notice, the builder disputed the homebuyer's allegations, claiming that the apartment had been purchased for the buyer's 'own commercial gain' and alleging that he had invested in the project after considering the potential profit from resale of the unit. According to Mint, the developer acknowledged that the buyer had paid nearly ₹1.73 crore but argued that the total sale price of the apartment was ₹1,89,54,500, which included additional charges such as electricity meter installation, preferential location charges (PLC), club membership, external development charges (EDC), internal development charges (IDC) and interest-free maintenance security (IFMS). The builder also disputed the claim that the homebuyer had made all instalment payments on time.
After considering the submissions and evidence presented by both sides, the consumer commission held the builder responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The commission awarded ₹3 lakh as compensation for the mental harassment and physical agony suffered by the homebuyer, and directed the developer to pay ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs. The commission's rejection of the developer's delay explanations underscores the builder's fundamental responsibility to deliver projects within promised timelines, regardless of external factors.
