The National Commission rejected the builder’s defence that promises made in the brochure were unenforceable as they had not been incorporated in the agreement of sale
)
Listen to This Article
Arunima Palace Residents Welfare Association approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) with a grievance against builder Tarunika Gaur Housing & Constructions for failing to provide the amenities and facilities advertised in its brochure.
According to the complaint, the builder lured purchasers by extensively advertising the project and issuing brochures along with the layout plan. It promised well-developed infrastructure with green open spaces and a healthy living environment, supported by modern amenities and recreational facilities such as a community centre, swimming pool, poolside restaurant, guest houses, health club, library, sports facilities, jogging tracks, children’s play area, and uninterrupted power and water supply.
When the builder handed over possession, it came to light that the building did not have a completion certificate and that 180 units had been illegally constructed, despite the sanctioned plan permitting only 151 units. Many of the advertised amenities were also missing. The builder had further encroached upon common areas by erecting unauthorised constructions in open spaces, fire-escape zones, and parking areas.
The association submitted representations to the builder, but received no response. It then approached the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which instructed the competent authority to direct the builder to hand over community facilities, complete the pending work, and submit a deed of declaration according to law. The authority also directed the UP Avas Vikas Parishad to issue a completion certificate upon compliance with its orders.
As the builder did not pay heed to these instructions, the association approached the National Commission. It also highlighted serious safety concerns, including the installation of substandard lifts, exposed electrical cables, non-approval of basement and stilt constructions, and encroachments affecting common open spaces and areas meant for the movement of fire tenders.
The builder contested the case, contending that the agreement permitted modifications to the plans and that it had no obligation to provide the advertised facilities since these had not been incorporated in the agreement for sale. It further claimed that several current members of the association were not original purchasers and therefore lacked the right to raise disputes. The builder denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.
The National Commission observed that, under the Consumer Protection Act, the association was entitled to file a complaint on behalf of its members, who qualified as consumers, having paid a consideration for the services to be rendered by the builder.
The commission also held that all common spaces belong to the society or association formed by the members, and that the deed of conveyance must be executed in the name of the society or association. It, therefore, concluded that the association possessed an independent right to raise grievances regarding common amenities and open spaces.
On merits, the commission rejected the builder’s defence that promises made in the brochure were unenforceable as they had not been incorporated in the agreement of sale executed subsequently. It observed that builders attract flat buyers by offering the vision of a dream home with multiple facilities, and that failure to fulfil those promises constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. In its order dated December 10, 2025, delivered by Bharatkumar Pandya for the Bench presided over by Justice A P Sahi, the National Commission directed the builder to obtain the completion certificate within six months. It also awarded compensation and costs totalling ~60 lakh, along with 8 per cent interest from the date of the complaint.
The writer is a consumer activist
aniltikotekar4sme.com 