NCDRC Orders Full Refund with 9% Interest for Mantra Lifestyle Homes Buyers Over Chronic Project Delay

Seven flat buyers successfully compelled the builder to refund over ₹2.22 Crores, rejecting excuses of ‘Bajri ban’ and COVID-19 in a landmark group complaint.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi delivered a decisive judgment on October 09, 2025, directing Mantra Lifestyle Homes Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director to refund the entire deposited amount to seven complainants due to an egregious delay in delivering their flats.

The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member, and Hon’ble Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member, found the builder guilty of deficiency in service for failing to complete the project and obtain the necessary Occupancy Certificate, a failure that persisted more than nine years after some agreements were executed1111.

The NCDRC Final Order and Financial Impact

In the group complaint (Consumer Complaint No. 54 of 2024), the complainants sought an alternative relief of refund after waiting years past the promised possession dates (six years from the respective agreement dates)2222. The Commission granted this request, ordering the following relief:

  • Mandatory Refund: The Opposite Parties were directed to refund the entire deposited amount of the seven complainants3. The total amount paid by the buyers was ₹2,22,81,661/-4.
  • Compensation: The refund must include interest at the rate of 9% per annum5. This compensation is to be calculated from the date of the respective deposits until the date of realization6.
  • Compliance Deadline: The refund must be executed within eight weeks from the date of the order7.
  • Penalty Clause: If the Opposite Parties fail to comply within the eight-week period, the interest rate will be enhanced to 12% per annum8.
  • Litigation Cost: The builder was ordered to pay ₹50,000/- as the cost of litigation to each complainant9.

Deposits by Individual Complainants

The financial stakes were high, with the buyers having collectively invested over ₹2.22 Crores10. The individual amounts paid were:

Sr. No.

Complainant Name

Total Sale Consideration Paid Till Date

1.

Sumit Sharma

Rs. 47,21,837/-

2.

Sanjay Shripatrao Mali and Aparna Magar

Rs. 27,07,791/-

3.

Usha Sharma and Ravi Kumar

Rs. 39,40,181/-

4.

Mayank Agrawal and Palak Singhal

Rs. 36,44,317/-

5.

Suraj Mewara

Rs. 30,50,857/-

6.

Arun Kumar Rao

Rs. 34,11,276/-

7.

Shilpi Shyamsukha

Rs. 8,05,402/-

Commission Rejects Builder’s Excuses

The builder attempted to defend the delay by citing external factors and questioning the Commission’s authority:

  1. Rejection of Force Majeure: The builder claimed the delay was due to ‘COVID-19’ and a ‘ban on ‘Bajri’ (river sand)11. The NCDRC dismissed this, noting that the delays began well before COVID-19, and in any event, it was the builder’s responsibility to manage the supply of construction material like ‘Bajri’12.
  2. No Legal Offer of Possession: The builder’s argument that the complaint lacked pecuniary jurisdiction was dismissed13. This was partly based on the fact that an “offer of possession” made to one complainant (Complainant No. 4) was deemed not a legal offer because the builder could not produce the mandatory Occupancy Certificate14. The total claim was held to be well within the NCDRC’s jurisdiction15.

Wider Context: Consistent Customer Grievances

The issues highlighted in this NCDRC order are consistent with broader public feedback and regulatory actions against the developer’s projects in the region, particularly projects managed by Mantra Lifestyle Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Jaipur-based) and Mantra Properties (Pune-based):

  • RERA Findings: Separate orders from the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) confirm that projects, such as “Unique Mantra” in Jagatpura, were significantly stalled, with construction progress noted at only 68% complete despite the developer having sought five extensions since 2019.
  • Construction Quality and Delays: Numerous consumer reviews and complaints across public forums cited frequent issues with poor quality construction, material defects (such as seepage and leakage), and false promises leading to indefinite delays in possession.

This NCDRC ruling reinforces the legal principle that buyers have an unqualified right to seek a full refund with interest when a developer fails to meet its contractual obligation to provide legal possession (with the Occupancy Certificate) within a reasonable timeframe.

Click the link to read and download the order

Published in public interest by:

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani

Citizens Justice Forum | The Law Suits

413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom,

Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053

+91-8928372392 | adv.bhimani@gmail.com, bhimani@thelawsuits.in

Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner