The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, has upheld an order directing Godrej Properties to refund ₹ 20 lakh to an 84-year-old homebuyer, along with 9% annual interest, ₹ 20,000 compensation for mental agony and harassment, and ₹ 10,000 towards litigation costs. The commission dismissed the real estate company’s appeal with costs of ₹ 5,000.
The state commission, however, found that the company had been duly served through speed post at its correct address and that delivery was confirmed through the tracking report. The amounts, along with accrued interest, are to be transferred to her through RTGS after completion of necessary formalities. After repeated requests for correction allegedly failed, she sought a refund of the booking amount. Godrej challenged the order, claiming it had not been properly served and was wrongly proceeded against ex- parte.
The commission also directed the release of two deposits of ₹ 12 lakh each made in favour of the complainant, Shivdarshan Sharma. Sharma had booked a 3BHK apartment in Godrej Zenith, Sector 89, Gurugram, and paid ₹ 20 lakh in two instalments in March 2024. The District Consumer Commission-I partly allowed her complaint in March 2025 and directed Godrej to refund the ₹ 20 lakh with 9% simple interest from the respective dates of deposit. It also awarded ₹ 20,000 compensation and ₹ 10,000 litigation costs.
She alleged that despite booking a 3BHK unit, a 2BHK was allotted to her due to an inadvertent error.
Despite this, it neither appeared before the commission nor filed its written version.
The commission held that a party which has been duly served but chooses not to participate cannot later claim that it was denied an opportunity of hearing.
It rejected Godrej’s plea for remand and said the company had failed to provide any plausible explanation for its non-appearance.
