The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has directed Phoenix Infra Pvt Ltd, Model Town, Ludhiana, and its two directors to refund Rs 32.05 lakh to a 66-year-old complainant, along with 12 per cent annual interest from the respective dates of deposit until payment, for failing to deliver a residential unit in its Dream City project despite receiving almost the entire sale consideration.The commission, comprising president Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat, also imposed composite costs of Rs 50,000 on the company and its two directors, holding them jointly and severally liable. The directions were issued in a complaint filed by Major Singh Sekhon, a resident of Fatehgarh Sahib district, who had booked a ground-floor unit in Block N of the project.According to the complaint, Sekhon booked the 1,350-square-foot unit on December 27, 2012, by paying Rs 1.55 lakh. An agreement was subsequently executed on May 21, 2014, fixing the total sale consideration at Rs 33.04 lakh. The complainant stated that he had booked the unit for his personal residential use, relying on assurances from the builder’s representatives regarding the quality of construction and timely completion of the project.Sekhon paid Rs 32,05,634 in instalments, including Rs 10 lakh through a cheque in August 2014. Under the agreement, possession was to be delivered within 24 months, with an additional six-month grace period. Despite making payments as scheduled, he did not receive possession within the stipulated period.The complainant alleged that repeated visits to the builder’s office and requests for possession along with basic amenities yielded no results. During a visit to the project site on November 7, 2022, he allegedly found that no construction activity was taking place. He subsequently sought a refund of the deposited amount, along with interest and compensation for the harassment suffered.Phoenix Infra and its two directors, Pranav Puri and Sushil Puri, failed to appear before the commission despite being served notices and were proceeded against ex parte. AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd and its managing director contested the complaint, arguing that they had neither entered into an agreement with the complainant nor received any payment towards the unit.The commission observed that the contractual terms were heavily tilted in favour of the builder and against the homebuyer. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Govindan Raghavan, it held that unilateral and unreasonable contractual conditions could not be considered binding on a consumer. It also referred to judicial precedents holding that failure to deliver a flat within the stipulated period amounted to a deficiency in service.The commission concluded that Phoenix Infra and its directors had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations and had adopted unfair trade practices. It held that the complainant was entitled to a refund, along with reasonable compensation for the prolonged delay.The complaint against AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd and its managing director was dismissed.