In a notable ruling that reinforces the rights of homebuyers, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has directed a builder to refund Rs 11.72 lakh along with interest to an aggrieved consumer.The commission found the decision of the builder of not refunding the amount after cancellation of the flat in 2018 to be unfair.Delivering the verdict, Commission Additional Bench president Preeti Malhotra and its member Mohinder Singh Brar held that the builder would also be liable to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation on account of deficient services coupled with unfair trade practice.The commission told the builder to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant.The orders came on a complaint moved by Mukesh Gandhi, a resident of Malerkotla in Sangrur district, against Hero Realty Private Limited and its housing project ‘Hero Homes’ located at Birmi village near Ludhiana.Divulging the details, consumer’s lawyer Pushkar Mahendru said the consumer had initially booked a 2.5 BHK flat in 2015 after being approached by representatives of the builder-cum-developer, who showcased a sample flat and highlighted various features such as a ceiling height of 10 feet 6 inches, premium fittings, modular kitchen, superior finishing, and modern amenities.Subsequently, the complainant was persuaded to upgrade to a larger 3 BHK unit measuring approximately 1,700 square feet, with assurances of better suitability for his family and attractive discounts.Relying on these representations, the complainant proceeded with the upgraded booking and paid Rs 11.72 lakh in instalments over time.However, the dispute arose when he visited the project site in December 2020 and allegedly found stark differences between what had been promised and what was actually constructed.Among the deficiencies pointed out were a reduced ceiling height of 9 feet 6 inches, use of alleged inferior construction materials, inadequate and smaller kitchen fittings, lack of proper finishing, cracks in plaster, and absence of essential amenities such as greenery and children’s play areas.The developer, on the other hand, contested the complaint and denied the allegations. It was argued that the complainant was a habitual defaulter and had repeatedly changed the unit and payment plans. The consumer failed to pay the balance amount of Rs 56.43 lakh under the Apartment Buyer Agreement despite issuance of several letters resulting into cancellation. They asserted that the cancellation was lawful and in line with contractual provisions, including forfeiture clauses.After hearing both parties and examining the documentary evidence placed on record, the Commission observed that while there was material to suggest that the complainant had defaulted in making certain payments, the conduct of the builder in retaining the deposited amount without refund could not be justified.The Commission noted that even after cancellation of the allotment, the developer failed to refund the amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement.Importantly, the Commission emphasised that even where forfeiture clauses exist in builder-buyer agreements, the builder is obligated to act fairly and cannot indefinitely withhold a buyer’s money.The failure to refund the amount within a reasonable time was viewed as a continuing cause of action.