The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a real estate developer challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order, which directed the refund of ₹7,16,41,493 to a respondent, a private limited company, for deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices. The judgment reinforces the consumer status of legal entities under certain conditions and the obligation of real estate developers to ensure transparency and fair practices.

1. Background of the Case:

• The dispute arose when the respondent, a private real estate company, booked a flat in the appellant’s project "Omkar 1973 Worli" in 2015, paying a booking amount of ₹51 lakh and subsequently paying ₹6,79,97,071. The flat was allotted to them for a total sale consideration of ₹34.5 crores.

2. Double Allotment and Cancellation:

• The appellant advanced the possession date to the first quarter of 2017 and asked the respondent to take possession. However, the respondent discovered that the flat had been previously allotted to another individual, Nakul Arya, leading to confusion and their refusal to take possession. The appellant subsequently canceled the allotment and forfeited the amount paid by the respondent.

3. NCDRC's Findings:

• The NCDRC found that the respondent was a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and held that the appellant was deficient in service due to the double allotment issue. The NCDRC ordered the appellant to refund the amount with interest.

4. Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC’s order, stating that the respondent was indeed a consumer, as the flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family, not for a commercial purpose. The Court agreed that the appellant’s cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the deposit were unjustified.

5. Refund Directions:

• The Supreme Court directed the appellant to refund ₹3 crore within two weeks and the remaining amount by December 31, 2024. Failure to comply would lead to recovery as arrears of land revenue.

6. Conclusion:

• The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the consumer rights of entities purchasing goods or services for personal use, and highlighting the importance of transparency and fairness in real estate transactions.